It's good to see that she's actually being punished for deliberately attempting to destroy someone's life over a lie, but I do think the punishment should be equivalent to the amount of time for which she was seeking to imprison the victim. I'm not sure what the typical sentence for rape is in the UK, and a year is far from a slap on the wrist (we have a really distorted view of appropriate lengths for prison sentences in the US), but it does seem like false rape charges should be treated as seriously as actual rape charges.

Lying to the cops to get an innocent person sent to prison - few things are more evil than that.

Unlike the US, in the UK it's fairly common for false accusers of rape to see jail time. Since most of the false allegations of rape occur because of the culture of drunkenness in UK, the judges aren't particularly inclined to show the ladies mercy. I've read of several similar cases in the UK press in the last year.

Unlike in the US, it's fairly common for women who falsely accuse men of rape in the UK to serve jail time. I think it has to do with the culture of drunkenness in the country, which is what causes most of the false allegations. I've read of several similar cases in the UK press over the last year.

To: Immaturely minded women-Regret Is Not Rape!

I remember months ago listening to Dr. Laura. A college girl/woman called in and said I liked this guy but he was never interested in me and he always seemed to have a girlfriend. He and his girlfriend had broken up and a bunch of us went to the bar. When the bar closed it was just me and him. I invited him back to my place and we had sex and he spent the night. Since then he hasn't called me or even talked to me. Should I charge him with sexual assault? Dr. Luara said "Why because he doesn't want a relationship with you?" She said "Well I had been drinking and he had sex with me." Dr. Laura said "You both had been drinking and had sex with each other." She said "but he hasn't called me or talked to me." Dr. Laura said If he wanted to have a relationship with you and he called you and wanted to be boyfriend and girlfriend you would not be wanting to charge him with a sexual assault. You regret what you did because you feel used and cheap. "Regret is not rape."

I completely agree that anyone who falsely accuses someone of a crime should go to jail.

However the clever idea that "punishment should be equivalent to the amount of time for which she was seeking to imprison the victim." is stupid.

It sounds poetic, but if you think about it, it's a huge oversimplification of what should be a complicated process.

Punishments for crimes should be carefully considered based on a number of factors. These include damage done to society as well as the victim, intent of the criminal, chances of future recidivism and deterrent effects.

False accusations of rape harm not only the accused, but also future actual rape victims, who may be less likely to be believed, and any type of perjury harms the integrity of our judicial system. (Which I realize has faults, but remains, as the saying goes, the worst system in the world except for all the others.)

That is not to say that the punishment should necessary be less than the amount of potential jail time for the accused. Generally, I think it should be more. If a man was falsely accused of indecent exposure, he may very well be let off with no jail time at all, but his life and liveleyhood would still be severely damaged. In the cases that Amy champions (rightly) of divorced fathers getting screwed out of custody, false accusations may not lead to any jail time, but can ruin families.

I may seem to be going overboard on a semantic point here, but this idea is symptomatic of a general oversimplification of discourse these days. People like to see issues boiled down to simple slogans, rather than considering all the elements of an issue.

So yes, let's send false accusers to jail, with severe sentences commensurate with the seriousness of the crime taking into consideration all of the repercussions of that crime.

You wouldn't suggest that the jail term for a rapist should equal the amount of time the he spent raping, would you?

I completely agree that anyone who falsely accuses someone of a crime should go to jail.

However the clever idea that "punishment should be equivalent to the amount of time for which she was seeking to imprison the victim." is stupid.
______________________

You beat me to it.

Example: Since when does ANYONE suggest imposing the death penalty on someone who tries to frame someone for murder?

Even Michael Moore, in his chapter "O.J. is Innocent," never once suggested that the cops' attempts (in his opinion) to frame O.J. should be punished with ANY kind of a sentence equivalent to what O.J. might have received. I think there's a good reason most people would follow suit.

But yes, sometimes the false accusation typically causes far more damage than the other crime would have. So that needs to be addressed.

"I completely agree that anyone who falsely accuses someone of a crime should go to jail.

However the clever idea that "punishment should be equivalent to the amount of time for which she was seeking to imprison the victim." is stupid."

I can understand people feeling this way (because unlike most other false allegations, false allegations of rape can do serious damage) but I think its anger talking. Rape (just like any topic that touches on sex) is a hot topic. Tempers flare and at times people demand mercy when they themselves give none.

Bob:
"Unlike the US, in the UK it's fairly common for false accusers of rape to see jail time."

That is the result of people thinking that protecting women is more important than punishing wrong doers. Most of the time in US when someone posts an article on a false rape allegation more of the article is spent talking about "real victims of rape" and "wasted resources" than the person who was falsely accused.

"You wouldn't suggest that the jail term for a rapist should equal the amount of time the he spent raping, would you?"

No, but that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

I don't think that a false accuser's sentence should mirror the amount of time her victim would have faced in jail because it "sounds poetic." But thanks, I guess I'm a poet and didn't know it! (groan)

I'm also not oversimplifying "what should be a complicated process." You assert that punishments for crimes should take certain things into account, but you're conflating two different type of determinations: setting a punishment for a crime (i.e., rape should be punished by a sentence of 5-30 years in prison) and setting a punishment for an individual criminal (i.e., this particular rapist should receive a 20 year sentence).

So out of your list - "damage done to society as well as the victim, intent of the criminal, chances of future recidivism and deterrent effects" - you need to specify whether you believe these issues to be relevant to setting punishments for false rape accusations in general and/or for punishing this particular false accuser. I'm guessing you'd put damage to society and deterrent effects in the former category, and intent, damage to victim, and chances of future recidivism in the latter, but you'll really help your own thought process by making sure that you're being precise about these categories.

But even taking all of this into account, the issue of appropriate criminal punishment is much simpler than many of us make it out to be. After all, there are a lot of people getting rich and powerful because of vague, overbroad laws and regulations. I commend your instinct to avoid oversimplification, but over-complexification can be just as bad - it can lead us to get bogged down in meaningless nuance, as well as legally enshrine discretion to a dangerous degree. E.g., giving DAs and law enforcement officers wide latitude in choosing who to pursue and to what extent can result in selective, discriminatory, and generally unfair prosecution.

Punishment should reflect actual and intended harm. Imprisoning someone for the amount of time for which they sought to imprison someone else is a just response.

OK then. I just erased a reply where I restated my previous argument, upon realizing that there is another, much stronger reason your "imprisoning someone for the amount of time for which they sought to imprison someone else" theory is stupid.

There is no absolute set sentence for a particular crime in advance. In the example in the original post, as it would be most of the time, the accusation was discovered to be false before the accused was even tried, let alone convicted and sentenced.

Had she not been revealed as a liar, his sentence would have fallen into a wide range. He may have opted for a plea bargain, but even after a full trial the judge would take a number of factors into consideration when sentencing. One of those factors would have been how traumatized the "victim" was. So in order to determine her sentence for lying, we would have to ask her "If this had gone to trial, how traumatized would you have acted?"

See how stupid this is?

Example: Since when does ANYONE suggest imposing the death penalty on someone who tries to frame someone for murder? Posted by: lenona

If they were framed to the point that the victim was up for the death peanalty and executed, then why the hell not?

They used the courts as a murder weapon so why should they not face the peanalty for murder?

If they were framed to the point that the victim was up for the death peanalty (sic) and executed, then why the hell not?

They used the courts as a murder weapon so why should they not face the peanalty (sic) for murder?
_____________________

I don't know if that's ever happened. My point is, the public's gut reaction, upon uncovering a false accusation (especially one that doesn't hurt the accused's Reputation and Future nearly as much as the other crime would have hurt someone) is, typically, NOT to impose a penalty equal to that imposed on the accused. (If the framed man gets life in jail for "murder" instead of the death penalty, clearly, for most, that's less bad than being murdered.)

Again, if, say, we're talking about a vicious liar who tries to get someone put on the sex offender list by falsely accusing that person of urinating in an alley, THEN clearly the penalty needs to be comparatively harsh, given how hellish your life can be once you're put on that grossly unfair type of list - and how relatively harmless the other crime is.

Clinky, perhaps I'm missing something, but you don't seem to be making a great deal of sense. Reciprocity and proportionality in punishment is...stupid? I'm not sure I take your point.

And I'm with lujlp - if someone deliberates frames someone else for murder, and the death penalty was on the table for the framee, then it should absolutely be on the table for the framer. (This is setting aside any concerns about the manner in which we administer the death penalty in this country. This is also, of course, assuming that there was deliberate malicious intent in the framing, and that there's no chance it was an honest mistake.) Lenona, "the public's gut reaction" is no standard by which to measure ANY type of justice or morality - we've cheered witch burnings and lynchings.

Yes. Reciprocity and proportionality ARE important. It is important when sentencing for a crime to take more than one factor into account. That's all. To say "The only factor to take into account when sentencing, if someone falsely accuses someone of a crime is the length of time that the accused would have had to spend in jail" is stupid.

After all the factors are taken into account, it could turn out that the sentences are the same. And I have no problem with someone thinking that the two crimes, rape and false accusations, should be treated with generally the same level of severity.

But if you mandate that the sentences should be the same, then you rule out taking any other factors into account.

The other thing is that the false accuser should be required to pay for the lawyers fees for the falsely accused and also be required to publish at least a quarter page ad saying something along the lines of

I, Jane C. Smith falsely accused <Accused name here> of rape. I apologize for my inappropriate actions.

<anything else they want to say as atonemnet.>

That would make a world of difference. Shame is a great equalizer and eye opener.

I'd put the liar on a sex offender registry, photo and all.

i think the 'equal crime, equal time' solution is too much

IMO the accuser should receive the same punishment the accused received while awaiting exoneration

for example: if the accused spent 100 days behind bars then the accuser should receive 100 days behind bars. if the accused spent 20 years behind bars yadda yadda

it goes without saying that the accuser should also be liable for any court costs on both sides

Yea clinkey I agree it is important to take other things into account when giving sentences. I guess you are not of the minimum sentence crowd. But it is when factors that are so minor become major that things get strange. Sorry Lady Justice's is not blind anymore.

OH she is a women - ok lets included the pussy pass. Ok next she has had some troubles in the past like drugs or sexual abuse.... hmmm OK lets give her a little bit more leeway. Ahhh now she is crying ok ok how about a little bit more. She says she really really sorry and promises she will never again do it. Ahh let just let her go with a stern talking too.

Also one aspect you need to be aware of in UK is when someone is assaulted or a major crime is done upon a person the victim is given money by the state(!). A few of the false rape in the UK have just been a money grab or two.