Should false accusers be punished if allegations can’t be proven?

[MrShaun]

Imagine being accused of something that simply didn't happen. Being made an outcast. Having your reputation placed in question and dealing with the results within both your personal and professional life.

Too often the assumption of guilt is automatically placed upon one being accused but that's not the way it's suppose to be. Anyone ever hear of the term, "Innocent until proven guilty?"

If one really wants justice to be served, why not protect the innocent until proven guilty? Start by not releasing the name of an accused until proven in court. And when an accusation cannot be proven, hold the accuser accountable.

Simple and fair!

[sage2021]

The accuser definitely should be punished for ruining someone's life, reputation, etc.

But in America 🇺🇸 even proven criminals get a free pass and nothing happens to them.

But it's the "Blame the Victim" instead. This is so wrong when that happens. Our judicial system goes right along with that statement.

There was a time for a while many years ago where girls were accusing their male teachers of sexual harassment and sexual abuse. Unfortunately, it did ruin many teachers lives.

Even if the girls came forward and admitted that it really didn't happen, by then the teachers life was ruined.

Even in our personal lives, people at work can do the same thing, making false accusations and the employees gets fired.

It's like a run away train! It just never stops for the victims.

[sage2021]

Thank you for the MHO 🙂🧡

[RingOfFire]

I've always thought that when a woman is found to have falsely accused a man of rape or sexual assault that she should get the same sentence he would have gotten had he been guilty.

[Calyptomaniac]

Innocent until proven guilty is strictly a legal term, not something you can force upon the general public. Not releasing names in advance of the trial is a good idea to combat it, though then people can randomly be detained and no one may ever know it or why. That's why those things need to be public record.

As for the rest, some things are just not provable. Failing to prove it to a legal standard doesn't make it false. It makes it unprovable. If you could prove it was knowingly claimed falsely, then you can hold the accuser accountable. But libel/slander/defamation cases have a low success rate too because that is also extremely difficult to prove. If you could just magically know if someone was guilty or not, then great, but we wouldn't need a legal system then. Sometimes the guilty get away because it can't be proven but it doesn't mean they didn't do it, and sometimes the false accuers get away because it can't be proven false either. Unfortunately, sometimes there is just no way to know and forcing punishment on one of them just isn't automatically right.

[OneViewpoint]

That's why we have laws that address defamation of character in the form of Libel (written) and Slander (verbal) lies about anyone. They only impose civil penalties so the judgements are mostly monetary. But proving slander and libel can be tough.

[purplepoppy]

If it can be proved they lied with malice then yes. But the risk is real victims would fear coming forward because if the case collapsed they'd be at risk of prosecution them.

[abc3643]

No, because the inability to prove allegations is not the same as the allegations actually being false. You'd have to outright disprove the allegations before any punishment can occur... and that punishment has to come at the end of criminal trial.

[genericname85]

i mean there should be a burden of evidence to show that the accusers actually were aware that their accusations are false and made with malice. but then again that crime already exists. it's called defamation.

[LC75LC71]

Women pretty much get away with everything. Source - Existence

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Yes!!