Why aren't false accusers punished severely, instead of just a slap on the hand?
I know that false accusations are used all of the time. In some cases I realize it may be mistaken identity, etc.
But I also know that false accusations of child abuse and sex abuse are made in child custody cases, false accusations of rape are made to get back at someone, draw attention or get money.
Some of these, such as accusations during custody cases are obviously false.
Why shouldn't the laws be structured, so that if there is a preponderance of the evidence showing that there is a false accusation, the accuser should get the same punishment as the falsely accused person should have got if convicted?
I am certain that there are thousands of falsely accused people sitting in prisons ( this is now supported by research) for something they didn't do. Fortunately some of these cases are now being reversed but only after years behind bars.
It seems to me if there were some laws put in place that would punish false accusers severely, there would be less of it.
Answers:
Let's say you were falsely accused of rape. You get arrested, you get out on bail. You hire an attorney, gather discovery, and move on to trial. Eventually, the case against you is dismissed, but you have been dragged through the mud. Now you want the accuser's head -- right? Really? You LIKE being dragged through the mud, don't you?
Think of what this will entail. Just like you were entitled to defend yourself against the accusation of rape by proving that the sex was consensual, so your accuser will be entitled to defend herself against the charge of perjury by proving that she accused you in good faith. You will have to testify about the circumstances of the encounter -- and this time you won't have the option of staying off the witness stand. Your accuser, on the other hand, will have her constitutional right not to testify. You can bet on being vigorously cross-examined by her counsel. And remember -- to get acquitted, she need not prove that you raped her, only to raise a reasonable doubt as to her motivations. As a practical matter, this will be the equivalent of you being tried for rape again; and if she gets acquitted, it will take something away from your prior vindication and make it look as if you were guilty, after all.
By the way: just because a rape defendant got acquitted, that doesn't mean he didn't do the rape -- it just means the government did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and it certainly does not mean he was falsely accused. Most of those who are acquitted did, in fact, do the act they were tried for, or at the very least something very unsavory -- and their interests are hardly served by going after the victims.
Moreover, even if the act did not occur, an accusation still may have been made in good faith. (For example, if you tell a girl that you had sex with her three ways till Sunday two weeks ago when she was passed out drunk.) The law should not make honest people be afraid to come forward when they have a good basis to believe they have been victimized.
They should at least be smeared publicly like the falsely accused.
You'll always be looked at funny after someone accuses you of a sexual offense.
There is such a suit ... it's called defamation of character. If people are wrongly accused of something, they can counter sue.
The first problem is it would also scare people that don't have a lot of corroborating evidence to make an accusation, even if it's true. Especially those crimes where it's one person's word against another, like the ones you mentioned, rape and child abuse. Unfortunately, if you are accusing or are accused by someone with a lot of resources (political clout, money), the chances are stacked against you to begin with.
This also means every time you are victimized, there is a finite chance that *you* will go to jail instead of the perpetrator. This is inevitably going to happen, because our system is not perfect, and never will be.
Third, prosecutorial discretion is a very powerful weapon, and between charges of fraud and perjury, coupled with the difficulty of proving such charges, I wonder how effective this policy would really be. It might serve our *perception* of what justice *should* be, but I doubt it could actually be effectively applied if it's put into practice.
Personally, I think our time is better spent trying to vindicate or avoid convicting the people that are falsely accused. The justice system was created to let guilty people go free before we send innocent people to jail. There's a lot of room for improvement even on that score.
There is a punishment, it's called suing for defamation of character. If the person who is being accused is found to be innocent of the offenses they are being charged with; and the charges has caused them some sort of hardship, and they have proof of hardship i.e loosing their job, paying various court fees, hiring attorney's, loosing benefits of seeing the children etc., they can sue the accuser for millions if they want. Now that doesn't mean that is what they will get but they can sue.
I am in total agreement with you mad cat. I, too, am a victim of 2 false accusers. I lost my job, home, furnituring, 3 vehicles & 6 years of life behind a unlawful incarceration resulting from their false accusations; & a concealment by government officials to hinder my receiving just compensation for my losses. Maybe you & I should consider perfecting class actions, & petitioning our Congressional leaders about the injustices being practice & equality of punishment to be administered to such perpetrators!
One of the problems of suing for defamation is that if the defendant declares bankruptcy, like Al Sharpton did, the victim gets nothing, and the violator gets no punishment.
Prosecutors should pursue and prosecute false accusers with the same zeal as they pursue criminals, because they are attempting to commit a crime using the criminal justice system.
They should be in prison.
This happens everyday. Unfortunately most of these innocent people in prison are there because of the TOTAL INADEQUACY of the legal system! Prison is a breeding ground of hatred, corruption, and everything but rehabilitation! It is a public education on everything wrong in the world today. AA is rehab, prison is not. If the perpetrators of bogus convictions were force to do twice the time as the accused/convicted, EVERY judge, cop, and lawyer would be sitting there instead. It is way past time for us to fix the ways of the so-called legal system. The Duke players gives good publicity as to why our system should be held accountable for perjury and the further crimes they perpetrate in order to justify their positions in society. That DA should be in the gas chamber for trying to put these boys who he knew were innocent behind bars! Unfortunately they are not held to the so-called higher standard that they say they are. These boys and their families were publicly humiliate and financially bankrupted and thrown out of school! The legal system uses tactics that are worse than the mafia. All attorneys and 99% of our cops should be executed! They have committed crimes above and beyond your typical serial killers. With little or no regard as to the effects of their actions. It's high time they were made to pay for their own crimes. You cannot police a society without policing themselves. They say ignorance is no defense so there is no excuse for the crimes they commit to go unpunished.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: