Falsely accusing someone of a crime should be punishable by the same sentence the accused would have served had they actually been guilty.

[-]

VisionAri_VA@reddit

No.

I’m all for putting them in prison and making them pay restitution but this is, at worst, akin to perjury.

And how do you differentiate between malice and error? Seems a bit harsh to put someone away for decades because they misidentified someone.

[-]

GothGirlsGoodBoy@reddit

Misidentifying someone would be a case of reasonable doubt.

Falsely accusing someone of rape essentially ruins their life whether you succeed or not. You should get whatever the punishment is you tried to pin on them.

[-]

how would u know they falsely accused that, people try to pin the blame on the accuser quite often and spin the story. Why would people even admit to it in the first place if there is punishment (there already is but less people will talk about it)

[-]

SmallAd7318@reddit

And how do you prove it was a false accusation of rape?

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

AxelV2@reddit

I guess it would need to be similar to the standards we hold for convicting somebody in any criminal trial: a preponderance of evidence—beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused’s counsel would need to prove that the person did, in fact, falsely accuse their client intentionally, not by mistake. I’m not sure how that would work logistically, of course.

[-]

FewRecognition1788@reddit

Preponderance of the evidence is a civil standard, and is a much lower bar than beyond reasonable doubt.

[-]

AxelV2@reddit

Good to know, thanks! Didn’t know the difference. Edited my comment.

[-]

BillWeld@reddit

Make you think twice before pointing the long bony finger.

[-]

Melohdy@reddit

You would have to prove intent.

[-]

DeFronsac@reddit

This wouldn't work at all in the real world. This comes up in discussions about rape a lot. First off, it's insanely rare for someone to knowingly falsely accuse a person of rape.

Second, victims already have a lot of disincentive to report genuine rapes. The possibility of facing this kind of punishment, if somehow they're convicted of lying would only make that worse.

I get the idea behind it, but I just don't think it works in a practical sense.

[-]

flamingloltus@reddit

This is a nightmare.

While I agree with you, idealogically, I completely fail to conceive of how this could be logistically possible.

[-]

elevencharles@reddit

Yup. I work in criminal defense and I think people who make up false allegations are some of the worst people on the planet, but a not guilty verdict ≠ proven innocent.

[-]

Cutsdeep-@reddit

obviously not triggered by a not guilty decision, but what about if there is evidence against the accuser to say they are making it up? perjury etc

[-]

EstateBig891@reddit

Perjury is already a crime..

[-]

Special-Audience-426@reddit

While some are smart enough to keep their mouths shut, lots of false accusers brag about it or leave an evidence trail trying to get others to go along with their lies.

An investigation into false accusations is completely separate to the original trial and requires evidence of a crime.

[-]

SirGeremiah@reddit

Yeah, it should require intent. It’s not about being wrong, but about knowingly falsely accusing someone.

[-]

elevencharles@reddit

Let’s say Susan accuses John of rape. During the trial, John’s defense attorney introduces evidence that suggests Susan is making it up (there’s almost never definitive proof either way in a sex case), and the jury finds John not guilty because there’s reasonable doubt that he raped Susan.

Now imagine the state turns around and tries to prosecute Susan for making false allegations. All Susan’s defense attorney has to do is present the state’s original case against John, which must have had some merit in order to get an indictment from a grand jury, and is probably more than enough to create reasonable doubt that Susan made it up.

So now the state has lost two cases at great taxpayer expense, not to mention the chilling effect it would have on legitimate victims who don’t want to report crimes for fear of going to prison themselves if trial doesn’t go the way they expect.

[-]

Cutsdeep-@reddit

yeah, fair enough. i guess i'm talking about more evidence than just an allegation that is not true, eg proof of conspiracy or similar.

realising that yeah, it's a slippery slope that could end up in a 3rd, 4th, nth case in retaliation

[-]

elevencharles@reddit

Also, prosecuting an alleged victim for a false accusation would require the district attorney’s office to admit they made a mistake in prosecuting the original case, and that’s something that DAs will never, ever do.

[-]

chris14020@reddit

Not necessarily - let's say A Accuses B of a crime (to avoid specifics). B claims they did not do it, but they were in the same place, and A has some possible merit that leads to charges. However, in discovery, it comes out that A sent a message to someone else admitting B did not do The Crime and they are accusing them for revenge based on personal history or other disdain of them - again, keeping this vague to avoid arguing any specific case, law, dynamic, et cetera.

Acknowledging that seldom is it so obvious and clear-cut, and while people can be exceedingly stupid, people don't often outright tell on themselves like this, this hypothetical would be one where both the DA would not have fault in a mistake, and also it would be pretty clear there is grounds to investigate knowingly filing a false report.

[-]

elevencharles@reddit

I just finished working on a real case where the defense literally found a letter written by the accuser talking about how they were going to make the whole thing up. The prosecutor insisted on going to trial anyway despite the obvious evidence against the accuser, and after a week long trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty on all counts after 90 minutes of deliberations.

There’s no way in hell that DAs office is going to turn around and prosecute that accuser. It would be a PR nightmare, and only draw attention to their previous fuck up.

[-]

Mahoka572@reddit

Does the man who was accused have any recourse? Maybe the DA doesn't want to touch it but what about him?

[-]

elevencharles@reddit

He could sue the accuser in civil court, but she doesn’t have any money. The real guilty part in this case is the prosecutor (I suspect the accuser is just severely mentally ill), but of course he’s protected by qualified immunity.

[-]

bemused_alligators@reddit

It's libel at a minimum (whatever falsehoods were stated in the initial complaint, perjury on all the singed court documents and probably some of the testimony z and likely some slander as well.

[-]

Dragonfly_Select@reddit

Yeah, you’d need a wholesale process reform/special process to force it.

Maybe after the not-guilty verdict the jury gets the option to mark the verdict as “with prejudice”. This then forces a misconduct review at a dedicated office at either the state or federal level as appropriate. Perhaps the head of that office could be independently elected for accountability reasons. That office could then prosecute or disbar people appropriate.

Your example is actually perfect. There was real evidence of the fabrication of evidence before the case. The witness and the prosecutor should both face consequences.

[-]

bemused_alligators@reddit

That's a very simple case of libel/slander/perjury. Bring a civil suit against whoever signed the police report.

[-]

chris14020@reddit

Sure, but this should be a criminal charge, not just a civil penalty.

[-]

Cutsdeep-@reddit

so even if someone found evidence of this conspiracy after the fact, they wouldn't ok a new case? Thanks for the detail so far

[-]

popky1@reddit

People can’t just bring criminal cases. They all have to go the prosecutor’s office who is supposed to screen them.

[-]

The_Perfect_Fart@reddit

There is a difference between not proving the rape vs having clear evidence that she made it up. Juries don't find someone innocent, they just say there isn't enough evidence to prove it. If there is video evidence of her in a town 100 miles away at the time or phone conversations of her admitting to making it up then I think that is credible evidence.

[-]

stools_in_your_blood@reddit

Now imagine the state turns around and tries to prosecute Susan for making false allegations

The state isn't supposed to do this unless it thinks it can win (the state I live in, anyway). I suspect that falsely alleging rape would in general be at least as hard to prove as rape itself.

The chilling effect wouldn't be an issue if the general public understood that making an allegation only gets you prosecuted if there's decent evidence that you're knowingly making a false allegation. Of course, that is a big if.

In cases where there's e.g. text messages of someone planning a false allegation, or someone confesses, it would be useful to be able to throw the book at them.

[-]

real_hooman@reddit

This would also mean that people who intentionally made false accusations that they later regret are strongly incentivized to never tell the truth.

[-]

Material_Spell4162@reddit

This assumes that the initial accusation is progressed to trial.

I would expect a more likely sequence of events be: Susan accuses John of rape. In the course of investigation, evidence emerges that conclusively demonstrates this didn't happen. Lets imagine that John was in a different country at the time. Further evidence is uncovered that Susan told a friend of her intention to fabricate the accusation.

Obviously John is never put on trial in this instance, however the state may choose to progress a case against Susan.

[-]

bemused_alligators@reddit

In fact I think this would be the answer. Proven innocent is a different burden than proven not guilty, and false allegation (and perjury and the like) would only trigger after an innocent verdict.

Innocent = beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject DID NOT commit the crime

Not guilty = insufficient evidence

Guilty = beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject DID commit the crime.

A verdict of innocent would trigger an immediate refunding of all court and legal fees and an assessment of those refunded fees to the person that brought the suit, and a case review for perjury, libel, slander, and any other crimes related to causing damage via false statements.

[-]

elevencharles@reddit

I agree with this, but our justice system currently only has guilty/not guilty verdicts. There’s no such thing as an innocent verdict.

[-]

bemused_alligators@reddit

Hence why we're discussing modifying it...

[-]

elevencharles@reddit

I see, I didn’t realize you were speaking hypothetically.

[-]

GulfCoastLaw@reddit

Threshold would have to be so high that it's not worth it.

Agencies aren't going to investigate that if it's hard to prove, so we would be left with a small percentage of cases they lucked into.

[-]

flamingloltus@reddit

It's fortunately unfortunate that there's a no contest plea for many misdemeanors.

[-]

Limp_Bookkeeper_5992@reddit

Well you’d have to convict them of the false report using the same “beyond reasonable doubt” standard that criminal convictions require, including proving intention. We do this with numerous other crimes, so it’s totally possible within our current system.

It would be very difficult to actually convict though so you’d see only the most blatant cases prosecuted, which could be a good thing. Huh, this might not be a crazy idea after all.

[-]

reindeermoon@reddit

I always think about the woman who Netflix made a documentary about, Marie Adler. She was an 18-year-old who was transitioning out of foster care. A man broke into her apartment and raped her at knifepoint.

The police didn't believe her because of her background, and they hounded her so much she eventually told them she made it up, just so they would leave her alone. She was convicted of a misdemeanor for false reporting.

A couple years later, the police caught a serial rapist, who had kept photos he had taken of all his victims. Amongst them were photos of Marie, one of his victims. She had been telling the truth.

Not only was she raped and nobody believed her, but her life was ruined by the whole situation. Everybody in her town was just determined to prove she was a liar, but she wasn't.

I'm not saying we should never prosecute people for making false allegations, but we do need to make it a lot more difficult to do so, so that what happened to that poor girl doesn't happen to anyone else.

[-]

S1m6u@reddit

I don't disagree, but how is that different from police getting false confessions in general? I mean that is true of many crimes.

[-]

Dry_Astronomer_3855@reddit

The false reporter would have no control over what charges are actually filed. Those charges determine the sentencing range.

There is a massive difference between, say, manslaughter and 1st degree murder.

The suggestion is absurd and completely unworkable.

[-]

Mobe-E-Duck@reddit

It was part of ancient law, and it worked well. Not only that it a lawyer representing a guilty party knew the party was guilty and lied about it they, too, could be subjected to the same punishment as the accused.

[-]

carbslut@reddit

Some people haven’t watched Unbelievable. which is a true story

[-]

AdOk8555@reddit

People can already be tried and convicted of filing false charges or accusing people of crimes that were later proved to be false. The same standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies. However, in such convictions the punishment is almost always far, far less than the punishment that the falsely accused would have faced. So, there is not significant repercussions for someone to falsely accuse another.

On one hand, I think this would serve as a deterrent. However, it also creates a new problem. If someone is wrongly convicted based on a false accusation, the person who made that accusation now has a deterrent to correcting the mistake later.

[-]

Internets_Fault@reddit

If you falsely cause some one of rape and the punishment for rape for example is 10 years. If it's proven false then the accuser would serve 10 years.

While what should be written in too is that if you're found guilty and then later while in prison you're found innocent. I believe time served should be added as well. So if you end up serving 4 years before it's proven that you were innocent. The person who falsely accused would serve 14 years.

[-]

flamingloltus@reddit

By this logic everyone should have a rape kit in their purse, and that's assuming a condom isn't used. There's 0.0008% voter fraud and that's now a national nightmare. Imagine 0.0008% of rapists getting away with it and starting an ideological war. I'm down, but it's not possible with so many other issues currently.

[-]

RickySlayer9@reddit

I think there needs to be another trial (if appropriate) where the accuser is FALSELY accusing someone and held accountable. Simply being wrong or the accused walking free shouldn’t get you jail time. But there are cases where rape is falsely accused to punish someone. They admit it after, that they were never raped. THESE people should go to jail. Not sally who got raped but didn’t get a

[-]

LavishnessCapital380@reddit

I think there needs to be another trial (if appropriate) where the accuser is FALSELY accusing someone and held accountable.

Then what if it comes out in the second trial that the first one came to an incorrect conclusion? We go back to the first trial? Its nonsensical.

[-]

AdOk8555@reddit

No. That would be double jeopardy.

[-]

jaspersgroove@reddit

If that’s how you feel you probably don’t want to know how many rapists get away with it now

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

jaspersgroove@reddit

Lazy bums

[-]

RickySlayer9@reddit

I think there needs to be another trial (if appropriate) where the accuser is FALSELY accusing someone and held accountable. Simply being wrong or the accused walking free shouldn’t get you jail time. But there are cases where rape is falsely accused to punish someone. They admit it after, that they were never raped. THESE people should go to jail

[-]

flamingloltus@reddit

A lot of the legal rapes that occur aren't violent in nature, but coercive.

[-]

LavishnessCapital380@reddit

Ah, regretting something because you were stupid?

[-]

RickySlayer9@reddit

Sure I don’t see how that really changes the facts here. I think there needs to be intent to cause harm with the false accusation. Not a lack of evidence. Not a borderline coercive circumstance where a jury leaned one way or the other with a good lawyer.

There are bad actors who need to be held accountable, and it should go through the same process of every crime, and vetted appropriately.

[-]

bubblebeegum@reddit

I also agree with you ideologically but I’m against it being implemented because I can see a scenario where the false accusations are prosecuted at a much higher rate than the rape itself. With thousands of untested rape kits sitting on shelves across the country, there’d have to be serious reform before I’d get behind something like this.

[-]

LavishnessCapital380@reddit

They admit it after, that they were never raped. THESE people should go to jail

At the same time, someone might just say this because they are done reliving a single horrible night over and over again in court.

[-]

RankinPDX@reddit

How often do you think false accusers admit it afterward? How often do you think they will admit it if doing so will lead to a prison term?

[-]

Internets_Fault@reddit

Oh yeah it will be an absolute cluster fuck to implement. But the lives ruined by false accusations of any sort is disastrous. While the person who accused them get to live on without a care after ruining someone's life and possibly having them sent to prison.

It's something that can't really be put in place without alot of time and effort into how to implement correctly

[-]

flamingloltus@reddit

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I do too. Fortunately, most cases that are felonious in nature require evidence. I agree with you that legal representation in this country and the proceeding court proceedings should be simplified.

[-]

StinkButt9001@reddit

It's not even about the legal aspect. Simply receiving a false accusation can and will ruin your life in terms of employment, friends, family, etc.

I 100% agree that a knowingly false accusation should carry the same, or greater, punishment than what they're accusing one of.

[-]

flamingloltus@reddit

I have a personal story about an accusation that was defamatory, but since it was a civil matter I had no recourse. I was poor.

It ruined a significant climate change initiative that would have been state-wide.

[-]

SEND-MARS-ROVER-PICS@reddit

That just means no victim will ever come forward again. Hell, many don't already because conviction rstes are so low.

[-]

M0rph33l@reddit

I feel like it would just lead to people not admitting they lied for fear of the consequences, and doubling down on their false accusations.

[-]

spirosand@reddit

This would have the effect of stopping any woman from accusing a man of rape. It's very difficult to prove, coming down to he said she said.

Now you want to put these women in prison when prosecuters are unable to secure a conviction. I can't wait for the MAGA phenomenon to end so we can get back to reasonable policies and get back to people being too embarrassed to present these kind of ideas.

[-]

Suitable-Hand-1059@reddit

Sure, but only if there is evidence that someone knowingly and intentionally made a false accusation.

[-]

RankinPDX@reddit

If D is accused of a crime by V, and then D is acquitted at trial, that doesn't mean that V is lying. It means that we don't know what happened. Occasionally a person makes a provably false accusation, I guess, but I don't know that I've ever seen that in thirty years as a criminal defense attorney.

Another serious problem with that plan is, once the accusation is made, the accuser is stuck. Suppose the lying accuser is believed, the defendant goes to prison, and the lying accuser is wracked by guilt. They may never come forward if they will go to prison as a result. I have had cases where the lying accuser admitted it afterward, and I would rather get innocent defendants out of prison than punish false accusers.

[-]

AnxiousRepeat8292@reddit

But you shouldn’t accuse someone of doing something that is going to put them in jail unless you know for a fact they did it… your whole first paragraph is bologna. Idk why you’re defending people lying

[-]

RankinPDX@reddit

If one person accuses another, but the accused is acquitted a trial, how do you know which, if either, is lying? And, really, the important thing isn’t whether you personally know - maybe you were there and you really do - but how does the judge or jury know who is lying, even assuming that someone must be (rather than mistaken or confused)?

[-]

AnxiousRepeat8292@reddit

Obviously there would have to be proof of intent to lie. Feel like that goes without saying

[-]

RankinPDX@reddit

If you say so. But you are skipping over how hard that is in the real world, which was most of my initial point. I’m not defending liars. If I’m defending anyone, it’s people who might have lied but also might not have, and we can’t prove which.

[-]

AnxiousRepeat8292@reddit

I agree it’s hard in real world and 99% of cases wouldn’t have this but for that 1% we’ve all seen many times before, those people need to be in jail.

Nobody is saying every time someone is found not guilty, the accuser must be put in jail. We are saying when there is a without a doubt proven malicious lie, that person must be put in jail. These lies do happen even if it’s rare and you’re defending those liars

[-]

RankinPDX@reddit

I’m a criminal defense attorney. I defend a lot worse than liars.
I don’t disagree that when someone is proved to have made a false accusation, they should be punished. That’s the law now. But it rarely comes up.

[-]

AnxiousRepeat8292@reddit

Yes and they need to face the exact charges that the person they were lying about was facing and it needs to come up a lot more is what I’m saying. Idk if I’ve ever seen one of these girls who egregiously lie on a dude get decades in prison. They get slaps on the wrist if they face anything at all

[-]

yellow_wallpaper_17@reddit

Their opinion is based on the actual experience they have gained through their job in this field, whereas yours seems to be based on bullshit you believe that isn’t backed up by anything

[-]

AnxiousRepeat8292@reddit

You’re just talking to talk. Show me the egregious liars who are in prison for decades and I’ll show you 10 that aren’t. Him being a defense attorney does not give him experience in this at all

[-]

millieann_2610@reddit

in what way are they defending liars?

[-]

AnxiousRepeat8292@reddit

He’s like moving the goalpost talking about it being hard to do irl. We are talking about the cases where it is obvious malice.

[-]

millieann_2610@reddit

ok firstly im not sure how that equates to defending liars, so feel free to go into more detail

secondly i actually think its you who's moved the goal post, they were pointing out that its not as black and white as anyone who lies should go to prison and therefore it would be a difficult thing to implement because in most cases it would be incredibly difficult to prove. spending time in prison because someone said you did something bad is horrible its also horrible to spend time in prison because someone thinks you lied about it

you've moved the goal posts by saying, yes but in cases where its totally obvious that they lied they should go to prison. which is easy to say but difficult to prove so in a debate about moral ambiguity and the difficulty in proving a lie and why introducing anyone who purposefully makes a false claim must serve the punishment the made up crime would have been given is extremely problematic you've essentially said yeah but ignore all of that and only look at the extremely rare minority where its obviously a lie and easy to prove

and when the commenter responded you cant just do that because that would rarely be the case and its so much more complex than that, you've said they are defending liars

ironically you have falsely accused them

[-]

Security_Breach@reddit

I have had cases where the lying accuser admitted it afterward, and I would rather get innocent defendants out of prison than punish false accusers.

I'd rather not put those innocent defendants in jail in the first place, by deterring people from making false accusations.

[-]

HarleyQ@reddit

It wouldn’t deter anything though. We already have laws to “deter” people from committing crimes and yet real theft, rape, and murder all still happen. Making a new law to deter .0001% of liars wouldn’t work the same way the possibility of life in prison or death doesn’t deter criminals from doing those other crimes either.

Also most places can already prosecute liars for wasting police time and resources. Which again doesn’t stop those people from lying to cops and wasting time in the first place.

[-]

Security_Breach@reddit

It wouldn’t deter anything though. We already have laws to “deter” people from committing crimes and yet real theft, rape, and murder all still happen.

Are you seriously arguing that those laws are useless because they don't deter 100% of the population from committing those crimes?

Making a new law to deter .0001% of liars wouldn’t work the same way the possibility of life in prison or death doesn’t deter criminals from doing those other crimes either.

The two aren't at all comparable. You're saying that increasing the severity of the punnishment is not a good deterrent. I'm arguing that increasing the probability of punishment is a good way to increase deterrence.

In which of these two scenarios are you more likely to shoplift?

A: The punishment for shoplifting is death, but only 0.1% of perpetrators are caught.

B: The punishment for shoplifting is a week in jail, but 99.9% of perpetrators are caught.

Also most places can already prosecute liars for wasting police time and resources. Which again doesn’t stop those people from lying to cops and wasting time in the first place.

Are you arguing that laws that criminalise wasting police time and resources are useless, because they don't work 100% of the time?

[-]

pickellov@reddit

“Are you seriously arguing that those laws are useless because they don't deter 100% of the population from committing those crimes?”

That’s not what they argued at all…they very simply said that laws don’t deter crimes, which is true. The proposal to more severely punish false accusers isn’t going to deter false accusations to a significant degree, but it will put an undue burden on actual victims, as their case could very well turn into a conviction for them if their defense can’t convince a jury.

[-]

RankinPDX@reddit

False accusations are already criminal. OP's proposal would increase the severity, not the likelihood.

[-]

Security_Breach@reddit

Are they prosecuted though? Separating them into a different crime than perjury, with different criteria, would help.

[-]

RankinPDX@reddit

No, they're not prosecuted, because evidence rarely exists distinguishing a false accusation from a true accusation which did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

[-]

MisterErieeO@reddit

And for those it doesn't deter, they'll now never admit the truth

[-]

Security_Breach@reddit

As if they usually do

[-]

Overall-Charity-2110@reddit

so we shift it to time served instead of expected prison sentence, come clean quick and you won’t have issues

[-]

Euphus@reddit

Or keep mum forever and serve 0.

[-]

bird_tube_oficial@reddit

I assume that after the conclusion of the trial, law-enforcement would have to do an independent investigation into V if there’s substantial evidence of fraud. I also think a lot of of the edge cases people are talking about could be filled out by requiring “malicious intent” to be proven by the prosecution, meaning that somebody would only be guilty if it could be proven that they were actively trying to harm to another person by manipulating the justice system.

[-]

AnxiousRepeat8292@reddit

You’re just talking to talk. Show me the egregious liars who are in prison for decades and I’ll show you 10 that aren’t

[-]

cwolf-softball@reddit

Okay so we'll double the amount of trials that happen I guess.

[-]

Feeling-Bus-203@reddit

not rational. some states have the death penalty for some crimes. if you falsely accuse someone of a crime that carries the death penalty and it is discovered that you knowingly falsely accused this person, you should now die because you made up a fiction?

[-]

ajsharm144@reddit

A bad idea, in fact an idea so bad that it's time should never come.

[-]

jsquiggle123@reddit

I see this idea or some variation of it brought up all the time and every time I think

Do you really believe false criminal accusations are such a common or harmful occurrence that we need to pass new laws to address them?
Are you unaware that perjury, obstruction of justice, and making a false police report are already crimes?
Is a false report really as severe a crime and therefore deserving of as severe a sentence as the very worst crime someone has ever been accused of?

[-]

BFFBomb@reddit

Even if they accuse someone by mistake?

[-]

No-Atmosphere-2528@reddit

This would cause witnesses to never come forward

[-]

bomboid@reddit

Say what you actually mean, which is that you share the irrational fear that a woman will accuse you of rape out of nowhere.

I highly doubt you think murdering someone is just as bad as accusing someone of murder lol

[-]

MeteorMann@reddit

If malicious intent can be proved.

"Oops, I guess I misunderstood what happened."

[-]

Wood_Duke75@reddit

You really didn’t think this through. Perjury is already a crime and everything else is just a disaster of ongoing clusterfuckery.

[-]

Dakk85@reddit

So… every single victim of a crime goes to prison if the person they accused is found not guilty?

[-]

Nunetzena@reddit

Since when everyone has to go directly to prison for being found guilty?

[-]

Dakk85@reddit

I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean

[-]

PunchBeard@reddit

But you would need to prove malice and that's almost impossible in a lot of situations. Like, I could say you tried to kill me because I actually hate you and want to see you suffer but even if it was proven that you didn't try to kill me you would have to prove that I accused you of doing so or malicious reasons and wasn't just mistaken.

[-]

jeffmc81@reddit

You only knew I jay walkedbecause you were jaywalking

[-]

ClunkEighty3@reddit

Perjury. This is called perjury.

(And before someone comes back at me and says no it’s not quite, yes I know in the details it isn’t quite the same. But honestly it is probably the most workable method)

[-]

KillConfirmed-@reddit

Such a radical idea and out there idea that nobody…*checks notes*

Oh wait actually this is in the Code of Hammurabi, so this is actually a really basic idea.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

AccountSuspicious159@reddit

Did you spend like any amount of time at all considering the consequences of this rule?

[-]

ABZB@reddit

This actually exists in traditional Jewish law, kinda.

Witnesses that testify to obligate or incriminate someone, who are then proven to not even possiblely have been able to witness said thing (e.g. they were in a different city that day) can be tried for being "conspiring witnesses", and if they are convicted, their punishment is "what they conspired [to inflict]".

(Just perjury doesn't suffice)

[-]

Cryzgnik@reddit

I accuse the burglar of breaking, entering, and stealing from my home and due to police misconduct, vital evidence is excluded from trial. The burglar is found not guilty. I have falsely accused the burglar of stealing from my home. I go to jail for years.

A good crazy ideas post for its craziness!

[-]

0xmerp@reddit

Tbf this isn’t that hard to solve even within the framework of our current legal system. Criminality requires intent.

If you prank call 911 you can be charged for that. If you call 911 believing there to be a genuine emergency, and it turns out to be a false alarm, that’s perfectly OK.

[-]

JellyKind9880@reddit

Yeah and our justice system functions perfectly, so how could anything ever go wrong? 🤦🏻‍♀️

[-]

eyadGamingExtreme@reddit

By that logic no criminal should ever be convicted

[-]

JellyKind9880@reddit

Do you actually think the U.S. justice system is fair and functional lol?

[-]

0xmerp@reddit

I mean if you believe that the justice system is dysfunctional, there is a chance that by reporting what you think is a crime, it is actually just a misunderstanding and you yourself were part of sending an innocent person to prison.

[-]

JellyKind9880@reddit

What kind of evidence do you think would “conclusively prove” someone reported a non-crime to try to implicate a minority? Did they brag about it on public social media? Ok then yeah, they absolutely WOULD be charged with submitting a false report at the very least—there’s a good chance other charges could be tacked on, and if there’s clearcut public evidence proving they knowingly did this specifically to hurt a minority, their charges could be upped to felony counts as a hate crime.

HOWEVER—short of a public confession on social media, or else someone who knows them personally coming forward to provide photo/video/written evidence of them confessing to the crime & the motive (and IF that took place in a 1-party consent state), I don’t see how anyone’s going to gather “proof” of intent & motive……so this seems very much like a fully theoretical discussion rather than an actual realistic likelihood, save the odd case with a very specific set of circumstances & “proof”

(But again—even in the very rare instances of someone falsely reporting a crime AND police gathering enough hard evidence to PROVE it, AND the DA feeling the case is strong enough to proceed to trial…? Well look at Jussie Smollett, that’s EXACTLY what did happen. (And in a case where a non-crime was falsely reported with malicious intent to have a specific innocent person blamed & charged for it, the victim absolutely would have grounds for a civil suit, even if criminal charges weren’t pressed or were dropped).

I think the big thing you’re missing here in this “argument” is how this would disproportionately affect victims of sex crimes—it’s already hard enough to get survivors to come forward in the first place, which is additionally traumatizing AFTER the fact, especially considering how fucked our justice system is when it comes to survivors of rape & SA.

A law like this would basically be telling a rape survivor that not only does she have to retraumatize herself by disclosing/reporting, going through the investigative process and theoretically testifying (IF a prosecutor is even willing to move forward, which more often than not, they aren’t due to “lack of evidence” and shit like “it’s a he said/she said situation”…… so not only does the survivor retraumatize herself through ALL that, likely facing personal backlash & humiliation in her personal/professional circles, for a VERY SMALL chance that justice will actually be served (less than 1% of federal rape cases end in conviction)….. now she’s not only putting all that on the line, but risking being charged HERSELF?!

Fuckkkkk that. We need to make it easier for victims of crime to come forward, not easier for criminals to punish & intimidate their victims and deter them from seeking justice

[-]

0xmerp@reddit

I mean the standard of evidence in a criminal trial is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, so that. How the prosecutor chooses to go about that is their business. Social media posts would certainly be an easy way of proving motive though.

now she’s not only putting all that on the line, but risking being charged HERSELF?!

Well, I didn’t bring up this example, you did, and I don’t really think it changes anything tbh, but like with other crimes, it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a knowingly false report. Like you acknowledged, that is a really high bar to meet and it’s difficult to prove intent in a case like this, and it basically doesn’t happen unless the claimant goes and brags about it. A criminal being acquitted or charges not being filed, or even a criminal being found not guilty, doesn’t mean the original report was knowingly false.

Normal people don’t file criminal charges btw, prosecutors do. So you can’t be found not guilty and then decide the next day to take revenge by filing your own case. A prosecutor needs to agree to take the case first (probably one from the same office that filed the case against you first, and they usually aren’t about to admit that they were wrong without a lot of evidence to support that).

[-]

JellyKind9880@reddit

No one said “normal people can file criminal charges”, what I said was normal people could certainly file CIVIL charges for monetary compensation.

Again though, back to sexual assault—do you really think random people are inventing false crimes just to hurt others SO REGULARLY that this short of shit would outweigh the horrific consequences of something like this to SA survivors? Or domestic abuse survivors?

I think you’re pushing a very faulty “solution” to a problem that exists WAY less than you think it does, and already HAS a solution (falsely reporting a crime IS a crime), and refusing to consider how that would affect SO many more people who are already being let down by our shitty broken justice system

[-]

0xmerp@reddit

No one said “normal people can file criminal charges”, what I said was normal people could certainly file CIVIL charges for monetary compensation.

But this thread is about criminal charges.

Again though, back to sexual assault—do you really think random people are inventing false crimes just to hurt others SO REGULARLY that this short of shit would outweigh the horrific consequences of something like this to SA survivors? Or domestic abuse survivors?

This is a red herring argument which I don’t really understand why you insist on bringing up. Why is this any different from other serious crimes? There is a whole Wikipedia article and multiple nonprofits about people being falsely accused of murder and a lot of those accusations were racially motivated.

I think you’re pushing a very faulty “solution” to a problem that exists WAY less than you think it does, and already HAS a solution (falsely reporting a crime IS a crime)

I’m not pushing anything, this is a subreddit to discuss crazy ideas, the discussions here do not influence law.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

eyadGamingExtreme@reddit

Where did I say that

[-]

VillageLess4163@reddit

The problem is there is still a serious risk an innocent people being charged. You are effectively discouraging people of reporting crimes to the police (even more than they already are)

[-]

0xmerp@reddit

I mean that’s the case with the justice system as a whole. There are innocent people in prison right now.

I’m not trying to argue whether this is right or wrong but as a society we’ve clearly accepted a certain number of innocent people going to prison as a price to pay for punishing guilty people. (And likewise, some number of guilty people will go free)

[-]

VillageLess4163@reddit

But this greatly increases the risk of punishment to people just for reporting crimes that may go unconvicted.

[-]

0xmerp@reddit

The bar in cases like this is quite high. The prosecutor has to prove you filed a report that was willfully incorrect. This is not easy to do.

Using the 911 example, the people getting prosecuted for that are basically harassing the 911 dispatchers.

[-]

ohgoditsdoddy@reddit

If it were a crime, it would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser knowingly made a false accusation for them to be found guilty.

The accused being found not guilty is not proof that the accuser knowingly or negligently made a false accusation.

[-]

NotAFishEnt@reddit

I'm on board. Does this basically mean you can accuse your accuser of falsely accusing you, and a separate court case would evaluate that?

I'm picturing a scenario where two people get in a cycle of accusing each other of falsely accusing each other of falsely accusing each other of whatever the original crime was.

[-]

bird_tube_oficial@reddit

The thing I think a lot of people are missing here is that it’s not the people involved in the case who decide what gets prosecuted, that’s the prosecutor’s job, and prosecutors only prosecuted a case if they believe there is sufficient evidence to actually convict someone, so if someone is just randomly throwing back an accusation that a witness is committing perjury to harm them then no one is going to take them seriously.

[-]

Cryzgnik@reddit

Indeed - so how do we get that proof? Open criminal investigations into every victim as soon as every victim go to the police? Or only once the accused is found guilty?

Either way, sounds like it would have a chilling effect on victims going to police.

a prosecutor would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser knowingly made a false accusation for them to be found guilty.

That's already an extant crime, it must not be what OP is suggesting.

[-]

ohgoditsdoddy@reddit

The thing is, whatever formulation of this specific crime OP may be suggesting, there is no other way it would work unless we redefine what constitutes criminal guilt. Prosecution would have to prove intent to falsely accuse in criminal proceedings.

I'd disagree that this would necessarily have a chilling effect, because the bar would be high and I expect only case where there is a clear indication of bad faith would progress to a prosecution. Negligence would be trickier to criminalize since an average person lacks the necessary legal knowledge - that would indeed have a chiling effect on reporting crimes and accusations.

False accusations are already illegal in many jurisdictions. In the UK for example, perverting the course of justice is a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, so even if we consider OP's suggestion limited to sentencing, it may be redundant. Wasting police time is likewise a crime. Obstruction of justice is a crime in the US as well.

I think OP's idea may specifically relate to sentencing, but even then it might be redundant.

[-]

bird_tube_oficial@reddit

The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knowingly gave a false statement with the malicious intent caused the person to be falsely imprisoned. Which would require them to establish some kind of motive, and prove that you had a prior relationship with the individual to give you the desire to bring harm to them.

[-]

74orangebeetle@reddit

No, you didn't falsely accuse them. There's a big difference between not enough evidence to convict them of being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and them being proven factually innocent. Just because they're not found guilty does not mean it was a false report. It's not the idea that's crazy, your premise is wrong.

[-]

Cryzgnik@reddit

There's a big difference between not enough evidence to convict them of being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and them being proven factually innocent.

How would they be proven factually innocent? If my home is broken into, I have to rely on there being some investigation that determines whether I go to jail or not? Because I was robbed?

It's not the idea that's crazy,

Oh, so it shouldn't be here?

I disagree with you, because the idea means that my being a victim of a crime means I might go to jail. But if you are right, the post should be removed.

[-]

74orangebeetle@reddit

How they'd be proven factually innocent would depend on the facts of the case....for example, if I accuse you breaking into my home at 7pm on a specific s date, but you were at a sports game and being broadcasted on live TV...so plenty of scenarios, if a crime happens at a certain time and you can absolutely prove you were in another location at that time....that's a big difference than a lack of evidence to convict you beyond a reasonable doubt, it'd be proving you weren't even there beyond a reasonable doubt.

[-]

Xylus1985@reddit

If your home is broken into, shouldn’t the accuser be the prosecutor and not you as an individual?

[-]

gettin-hot-in-here@reddit

right? what if prosecutors had to prove the accusation was false, "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt."
Should still be the standard for jailing anybody for any crime, like it is now.

[-]

Stepwolve@reddit

Courts don't find people "factually innocent" tho. They only find guilty or not guilty.

What if someone accused someone else of a crime, based on their genuine memories of a traumatic event. And then it turns out someone else is convicted of the crime. Should the criminal AND the accuser both go to jail? What if a crime was committed by 2 people, but they only have evidence to convict one of them?

I'm assuming what you want is consequences when someone makes a provably false accusation. Well good news - that's already a crime! But it's extremely hard to prove the intent was malicious, rather than a genuine mistake or bad memory. Which si why it's rarely tried

[-]

Professional_Sail910@reddit

Then throw the cops in jail

[-]

SlackerStacker26@reddit

I just read a true crime book where a murderer got off on a technicality, new evidence came to light, and then they arrested him for perjury since he said he didn't commit the murder while on the witness stand.

He got convicted and the judge immediately threw it out as abuse of double jeopardy .

[-]

PlayPretend-8675309@reddit

I don't think the penalty for falsely accusing of murder should be getting executed.

[-]

This-Wall-1331@reddit

Obviously. The OP's idea is stupid.

[-]

This-Wall-1331@reddit

Not just a crazy idea but also an awful one. What about situations in which the accused is released due to lack of evidence? Or if the accuser makes a mistake while testifying (which is very common when dealing with traumatic events)?

The only thing your idea would lead to would be making people refrain from reporting crimes such as rape due to fear of being sentenced for "falsely accusing someone" in case no evidence was found.

[-]

SkeletalNoose@reddit

There's a world where someone gets away with a crime they committed, and the person who accused them of the crime goes to prison because there simply wasn't enough evidence to commit.

Just no.

[-]

Plethorian@reddit

I'll accept: Punishable by imprisonment for the same length of time the accused was imprisoned, plus 1 year for being a lying liar.

[-]

FreeBricks4Nazis@reddit

People would be incredibly reluctant to report a crime because if there isn't enough evidence to convict, they may end up in jail instead.

[-]

Healthy_Yogurt_3955@reddit

This is included in the law of Hammurabi an ancient king of Babylon

[-]

All-for-the-game@reddit

So if someone responds to/defends against being accused of a crime by accusing the accuser of lying, do they get double the punishment if they’re found guilty? Since they are falsely accusing someone of a crime that now has the same punishment of their original crime.

What if the original accuser responds to the accusation that they’re making a false accusation, by saying the original offender is making a false accusation of false accusation?

Doesn’t that mean that every accusation will ultimately end in either the accused being found guilty and being sentenced to life, or the accuser being sentenced to life if the accused is found not guilty.

[-]

FewRecognition1788@reddit

Making a false report to the police is already illegal, but only if it is proved that the person knew it was false and acted deliberately.

Otherwise, nobody would report anything in case the wrong person got charged, or they suspected a crime that could not be proved.

[-]

bird_tube_oficial@reddit

The thing I think a lot of people are missing here is that it’s not the people involved in the case who decide what gets prosecuted, that’s the prosecutor’s job, and prosecutors only prosecute a case if they believe there is sufficient evidence to actually convict someone, so if someone is just randomly throwing back an accusation that a witness is committing perjury to harm them then no one is going to take them seriously.

[-]

bird_tube_oficial@reddit

For the people asking how this would work, here’s my guess

I assume that after the conclusion of the trial, law-enforcement would have to do an independent investigation into the accuser if there’s substantial evidence of fraud. I also think a lot of of the edge cases people are talking about could be filtered out by requiring “malicious intent” to be proven by the prosecution, meaning that somebody would only be guilty if it could be proven that they were actively trying to harm to another person by manipulating the justice system.

[-]

Front_Holiday_3960@reddit

I know someone who accused her bf of domestic violence including breaking her arm then later admitted to making it all up. He was still charged and convicted even after her confession.

At his trial he testified and when asked about various injuries on her that had been photographed he did state under oath that those were caused by him beating the shit out of her. He gave great details about the things he did and how he strangled her, he just denied that he caused the broken arm.

We need to be extremely careful about charging people with lying. You need to be very sure they actually made it up. In this case she only lied when she said she made it up. Her accusation was truthful.

[-]

scoutloner@reddit

Goodbye Redditors!

[-]

getawayfrommyfood@reddit

Being accused of rape isn’t as bad as being raped

[-]

Melohdy@reddit

We had a teacher accused of molesting a student. The teacher's name was in the press, he lost friends, lost his teaching certification, paid huge legal fees. The student later recanted her story saying that she was angry with him for poor grades. I submit that a false accusations of rape is much more harmful, because the rape DIDN'T HAPPEN. His career, marriage, etc was ruined.

[-]

getawayfrommyfood@reddit

Ok. Still not as bad as being raped

[-]

Melohdy@reddit

So, it's acceptable that men endure false accusations, bc some men rape?

[-]

getawayfrommyfood@reddit

No but we shouldn’t act like being falsely accused of being raped is the same thing as being raped

[-]

Melohdy@reddit

It's not even the point of the thread, so why bring it up except to marginalize false accusations.

[-]

getawayfrommyfood@reddit

It is the point of the thread, when people talk about false accusations, they’re usually talking about rape accusations

[-]

Melohdy@reddit

Projecting! I think of murder, personally. Framing someone for murder.

[-]

Clevererer@reddit

Not as bad, because in some cases it's worse?

[-]

getawayfrommyfood@reddit

Losing a job or a relationship is not as bad as being violently physically assaulted

[-]

Clevererer@reddit

You're imagining the worst possible scenario for the rape victim and comparing it to the best possible scenario for the falsely accused. You have no ability or no desire to discuss this objectively.

Many falsely accused end up spending years in jail.

[-]

getawayfrommyfood@reddit

Rape, by definition, is violent physical assault. It is not the worst case scenario, there is no rape that is not at least a violent physical assault. I am imagining nothing, the trauma of being raped is something I have to live with every day for the rest of my life

[-]

shorse_hit@reddit

Literally impossible. You can't know how long someone "would have served" unless they've actually been through the sentencing phase of their trial.

Sentencing isn't just "you did this, you get this much time." There are numerous mitigating and aggravating factors that can affect the length of one's sentence.

[-]

piecat@reddit

Okay, use the max sentance then.

[-]

Ri_ka_to_ji_@reddit

So everyone will be afraid to stand up for themselves because if they lose the coinflip it blows up in their face?

[-]

TheKingOfToast@reddit

You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed a crime to convict them. The same would go for convicting on the grounds of a false accusation. You would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accusation was false. Not guilty does not necessarily equal completely innocent (hence OJ Simpson being found liable in civil court despite beyond found not guilty in criminal court for the murder of Nicole Brown)

[-]

Xylus1985@reddit

Trials shouldn’t be “flip a coin to see if you are guilty” though

[-]

Ri_ka_to_ji_@reddit

How do you guarantee that you will win, even if you know you're right?

[-]

shorse_hit@reddit

You can't even spell sentence correctly when you're literally looking at the word.

Your ideas are less than worthless.

[-]

piecat@reddit

Cool story bra

[-]

Traditional-Art4167@reddit

U trynna kiss my infected lips bro bro?

[-]

Landwarrior5150@reddit

Your ideas are less than worthless.

This is the appropriate sub for them then, isn’t it? It’s not called r/greatideas for a reason.

[-]

GraceForImpact@reddit

Ughhhhh I'm so tired of reading this comment on every single thread in this subreddit. It's r/crazyideas not r/stupidideas, as in the trope of "that's so crazy it just might work!". The ideas obviously don't have to be super serious or thought out but there should still be some sort of logic behind them

[-]

shorse_hit@reddit

This is clearly a soapbox post where OP doesn't actually think their idea is crazy.

[-]

Moka4u@reddit

Should put this one in shower thoughts too lol.

This would be horrible

[-]

GSilky@reddit

In that one case where it is 100% egregious, sure, maybe. Most likely you are punishing mental illness.

[-]

RandomGuy_81@reddit

Impractical. Power and rich defendent can now use the treat of counter charges and corrupt prosecution to scare people from making legitimate accusations (worse than currently)

[-]

JGlover92@reddit

Sorry but this is such an edgy teenage first big thought take. Any degree of critical thinking and you'd see why it's such a bad idea in any realistic world

[-]

Ro_designs@reddit

I agree in theory, but in practice I fear it would be impossible to implement without causing a lot of harm.

Some crimes; for example rape, are difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubts. Only a small percent ever get prosecuted; and yet, I do not believe >90% of accusations are false.

It would likely scare more people from reporting legitimate crimes, than it would prevent false reports.

[-]

Dragonktcd@reddit

I’m all on board with this. This hypothetical crime could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if the falsely accused has a strong alibi.

[-]

Think-Location3830@reddit

Yeah but just because the person wasn’t found guilty, doesn’t mean it was a false accusation. This is not a good idea.

[-]

Cold_Collection_6241@reddit

It is already punishable. It's called slander, liable, perjury....

[-]

Budsygus@reddit

I agree with the concept, but it needs a tweak: Those who are found out get the sentence. Those who come clean get a DRAMATICALLY REDUCED punishment.

Anything that punishes false accusations will deter people from coming clean more than it will deter people from making false accusations, so you have to account for such incentives.

[-]

LastPlaceEngineer@reddit

Not the same sentence, but more harsh than it is now. Perjury is rarely ever chased and the problem isn't just the standard but the lack of any incentive by attorneys and how our system is structured..

Prosecutors? Obviously the same prosecutors cannot, due to client/attorney privilege.

Defense attorneys? The ones that make money have no incentive to push for this, even if jurisdictions allowed for it.

Solve this problem first then I think the rest will follow.

[-]

No-Pea-7530@reddit

Look up the writing of a dude named Hammurabi.

[-]

BillWeld@reddit

It’s an ancient idea and quite sound.

[-]

CoastieKid@reddit

Doesn’t this already exist with a counter-suit?

[-]

Melohdy@reddit

A suit is only as good as the ability to pay. How does that restore your reputation?

[-]

striykker@reddit

If it can be proven intentional or deliberate, 100%

[-]

PoopCumlord@reddit

Totally dumb idea written by some emotional redditurd.

[-]

Impossible_Dog_7262@reddit

I wish to propose splitting this case in two.
There should not be a penalty on simply failing to indict. If someone in their shock accuses the wrong person, or has not the evidence to come to a indictment, then that should not be cause for punishment. In case of mistaken identity it should probably be good if they were to announce such, if they recover from their shock.

That said, fabricating the offense entirely should be comensurate to comitting it. The difference is usually obvious enough to not cause false malingerers.

[-]

ProfileEasy9178@reddit

Ga'ran?

[-]

allenrfe@reddit

The major issue is just because you cant convict someone does not mean they didnt do it. Image a girl girl raped, goes to the police and tells them what happen. He highers a good lawyer get with it, and she goes to jail.

Would you accuse someone if you were not sure they could be prosecuted?

[-]

blamordeganis@reddit

Say you falsely accuse someone of causing a third party’s death.

Should you be sentenced for murder (and if so, depending on your jurisdiction, should it be for first, second, or third degree murder, capital murder, felony murder, depraved-heart murder, or some other variant), manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary?), aiding and abetting a suicide, or some crime of negligence?

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post was automatically removed because it contains political content, which is off-topic for /r/CrazyIdeas. Please review the subreddit rules and guidelines.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Doji_mofo@reddit

Dear god no.

There are some jurisdictions that have introduced laws such as this.

What happened was that when victims in DV cases dropped the charges (which often happens in DV cases), the victims then got prosecuted for making a false complaint.

The times when the law was used as a tool for harassment, this law was actually useless. Because if you report a suspicious activity, you're not making a formal accusation. But it will still trigger an investigation.

[-]

DoodleNoodle129@reddit

Maybe the idea sounds good in principle, but in practice I feel like this would just make victims more afraid to come forward about crimes they’ve experienced

[-]

GroceryScanner@reddit

it would make victims less likely to come forward, out of fear of punishment due to an incompetent justice system.

[-]

syvaxi@reddit

that's what the op secretly wants

[-]

GroceryScanner@reddit

and how tf do you figure that. dont just make shit up, it doesnt help anybody.

we can contest his stupid ideas all day, but when you put words in other peoples mouth, you lose all credibility when arguing against them

[-]

GreeboPucker@reddit

You would have to prove intent and all that shit. I actually agree this would deal with all the edge cases that people actually get mad about.

99% of the time this would have no effect.

[-]

Middle-Armadillo-660@reddit

You’ve definitely thought this through past the first step, right?

[-]

tichris15@reddit

Lol, so when a police officer leads a witness into accusing the wrong person, they are gauranteed a conviction? Either the accused, or the witness?

I get where you are coming from for malicious accusations. But a large number of false accusations are simply due to the malleability of human memory and recall.

[-]

MxM111@reddit

No, only if purposefully, but would be hard to prove in the court of law.

[-]

mattmoney31716@reddit

This would result in a society where no one reports crime in case the case gets tossed out. And what about cases that are brought on by the state, who would serve those?

[-]

StrangerEvening4697@reddit

Proper education around this would mitigate that. This would be beyond reasonable doubt that someone lied and It would be basically impossible to convict someone lying if they weren’t. And it would be extremely difficult even if they were lying as long as they don’t do something dumb like confessing to a friend in a text that they are about to file a false report.

[-]

Great_Stranger3954@reddit

I have thought that a long time. There should be unpleasant consequences for falsely accusing someone of a crime.

[-]

Stouthelm@reddit

Why would any victim come forward if there was a chance that they could serve a life sentence, be executed, etc.

[-]

StillShoddy628@reddit

Alright Hammurabi, just keep in mind that your standard of conviction has to go from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “maybe…probably?”

Also pretty hard to keep prosecutor job positions filled.

[-]

Impossible-Bar9276@reddit

In general, this is the basis for a slap lawsuit. Someone thinks you're talking shit about them or 'accusing' them of something, they sue you for literally anything, knowing ahead of time that your broke ass can't pay the legal fees to defend.

Sure, it's not exactly the same, but it would have the same effect... Which is surpressing actually truthful accusations.

[-]