What should the punishment be for falsely accusing someone of SA?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

On one hand, I want jail. But I think there should be a very low minimum because I think edge cases would get talked down or exaggerated too often.

So if it were up to me I'd say mandatory 15 days from the time of conviction with a max of 2 years and a fine of 500-2000 to cover the cost of any grape kit/testing. And the judge should get to decide if they end up on the SO list.

[bobalife]

It is already a crime for false accusation on SA. However, I’m not exactly sure of the current consequences other than probation. I think it’s a very complex and sensitive topic when it comes to SA related case specifics with so many unjust cases, victims not feeling heard or supported, or victims being discourage, afraid, and ashame to come out. Sadly there are victims who has gone through this without the accusatory getting any consequences or just getting away with it.


I do agree that the punishment outcomes could be light. Maybe participating supportive service programs and mandatory educational classes on laws for them to follow to create prevention including taking away their driver license for 10-15 days, 12 days+ in jail or longer depending on how much charges/frequency of the same crimes committed, and possibility community service for 3-6 months lol.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

So what happens in cases where its difficult to prove a sexual assault or rape occurred like in cases where the victim was too scared to go to police and get a rape kit done the day of? Do they get double victimized by going to jail as well?

[Telekinetic-Potato]

That's another good point. Laws have elements which must be proven in order for them to hold up through trial.

So I think most likely it would be something like

The accuser did in fact make the accusation

The harm to the other person was willful (which in court is often much harder to prove then it seems on the surface)

That a reasonable person would interpret the interaction as consentual.

I think that combined with wide discretion on the part of the judge to be lenient criteria like that would be harsh enough that nobody totally 100% innocent is likely to be charged.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Unfortunately that relies on bipartisan judges who actually dont have bias towards those kinds of cases. I mean on one hand you have judges who let women off with lighter sentences for sexual assaults or rape and on the other hand, a lot of them let guys off because they "dont want to ruin their life" like they did with that Brock Turner guy.

Im not saying those who falsely accuse shouldn't be punished, but especially with the epstein files being put out there, there is proof that a lot of powerful men are sexually assaulting, trafficking and raping women and children out there and a lot of them were initially hesitant to come out because of fear of retaliation. That hurts their cases of course, but it's understandable.

I think if you can get a confession it was made up then by all means, punish away, but even then it would be easy for police to confuse a victim who was traumatized and isn't thinking clearly and get them to just say it was made up just to stop talking about it.

This is a really tough subject with no real easy answer. I wish there was because false accusations ruin lives.

It's kinda like the welfare system in a way. You know it's being abused, but it's hard to really tell where it's occurring and having enough resources to verify it. You can't fully end it either as it would hurt millions who actually do need it too.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

I mostly agree. There's also other avenues I guess. If you falsely accuse someone that's already a crime. Maybe it would be redundant.

So far as judges goes that's why people would spend more time worrying about local politics. In some places, judges are elected. But most people have no idea who they're going to have to explain themselves to if they get in trouble.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Basically true there about the judges but that holds true about most elected officials besides maybe president and even then thats doubtful they just vote their teams colors

[MrChinaski]

So with the general caveat that 64% of all statistics are made up, roughly, back of the envelope in the US:

30% of sexual assaults are reported to police. Of those reported, perhaps 5 to 6% result in convictions... so, about 1 1/2 to 2% of sexual assaults that occur. Those numbers could be very inaccurate, but it's a ballpark.

So what percentage of those convictions result from false accusations?

You have a legitimate concern. But I think it is two or three orders of magnitude smaller than the main problem: women are being sexually assaulted, constantly.

[Twodogs0525]

It would be almost impossible to prove someone wasn't raped, unless the victim actually admitted it and even then, you'd have to have a trial, because she would retract her admission. If a defendant is found "not guilty", that doesn't mean he's innocent of the crime, that just means the state didn't prove their case, so a not guilty verdict, doesn't mean the victim wasn't raped. The best thing to do, is like someone else mentioned, go after her in a civil case.

[Twodogs0525]

Or SA, since that is what your question is about.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

The fact it's hard is why I think it makes sense. These people are usually only found out through chance happenings. I think part of the reason it happens is because it's considered acceptable to many women.

Those cases where it can be proven, it's not right that they have to engage in a civil case. There's a big difference between winning a civil case and the authorities specifically clearing your name.

[NathanDavis]

if a civil court... which is when you sue for money, there should be fines for twice as much the damage

if criminal court... which is when you go to prison... there should be twice the sentence time in prison

[Ariesman81]

It would fall under liable/defamation laws. Mostly civil, though some states do recognize it as criminal. Could be up to $10k and 10 years.

[Agape93]

Execution