People seem to know that when it's a Democrat who is accused:

"An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce supporting evidence that she herself asserts exists," Ellingstad wrote.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/01/keith-ellisons-attorney-allegation-isnt-credible-without-video/

Deuteronomy 19:18-19 -

"The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Mitchell's memo notes nine significant problems with Ford's testimony and underscores that her case is "even weaker" than a "he said, she said" case.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36519/prosecutor-questioned-ford-shreds-her-case-5-page-ryan-saavedra

Careful there. If you make the reciprocate sentencing automatic, you may deter these women from later coming forward for confess and free the falsely accused man - or to fight against the idea he was falsely accused instead of folding and admitting it. I agree with the sentiment, but if the objective here is to get the falsely accused out of jail, automatic sentences could be counterproductive.

confess and free the falsely accused man

I see your point.

But if there are no consequences for a false accusation, then there are no reasons to not falsely accuse people whenever it becomes convenient or "necessary".

And if their conscience is bothering them 5, 10, 20 years down the road, they can come forward, release the prisoner, and get other people to give money to the unjustly imprisoned.

What a deal!

Remember Brian Banks?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Banks_(American_football)

...then there are no reasons to not falsely accuse people whenever it becomes convenient or "necessary". ~ I R A Darth Aggie at October 2, 2018 10:41 AM

True.

However, I'm not supporting "no penalties" for false accusations, just warning against automatically-mandated harsh penalties. Let a judge and prosecutor determine the penalty for a false accusation on a case-by-case basis, within a broad set of penalties allowed by law and tempered by mitigating circumstances, if any.

Third strike laws have had horrific unintended consequences and we don't need to go down that road again with this.

Pffft. He's a white man. He's guilty of SOMETHING.

There is a problem with known harsh sentences deterring crimes. That is the perceived odds of being caught. If the odds of you being found out or convicted are low enough, the penalty doesn't matter, because you will not believe you would get caught. One could put in an automatic plea deal, if you come forward and confess, your max penalty is based on time the accused served (including time leading to trial). Giving incentive to confess early, not that I feel it would have any effect, based on perceived odds of being caught. And social stigmas against police prosecuting.

As for the punishment. The part I'd definitely want is for the false accusers name to be well publicized as such. And to a lesser extent, that the false accuser should be sent to the very cell the accused would have gone to. NO easier time at a white collar jail.

I believe that those who falsely accuse others of crimes -- who can be proven to have done so -- should serve the time those they falsely accused would have.

And don't forget to make them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, too.

Believe All Victims! - unless they go to Harvard...

https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/02/brett-kavanaugh-harvard-title-ix#comment

Anyone heard of this chick from Australia?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6091983/amp/Woman-false-rape-claim-gets-1-year-jail.html

And don't forget to make them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, too. ~ jdgalt at October 2, 2018 3:54 PM

Because that's exactly what we need, an even bigger sex offender registry with even more non-sex crimes getting people on it.

The number (and type) of crimes that get you on the registry needs to be severely constrained. Otherwise, it won't mean anything to be on it.

I'm all for it not meaning anything Conan. Lets just register everyone and be done with it.

I'm all for it not meaning anything Conan. Lets just register everyone and be done with it. ~ Ben at October 2, 2018 5:42 PM

Nope.

Government-coerced registrations with no meaning are the worst of all. It has to mean something, or else it's just sheeple training.

The objective is for the government to leave people alone, not to let it register them to meaningless lists or feel them up at airports or search their property without probable cause. Less government, not more.

Conan, if everyone was a registered sex offender then there would be no punishment and no point. That is how the list dies. I understand why people did this. But it is a bad idea and the list should either be deleted or made irrelevant.

Ben, we've already got too many government lists that mean nothing. Why add another?

If the Sex Offender Registry is going to mean nothing, why have it? Why spend taxpayer money administering a list that means nothing?

Useless government lists serve only to inure us to expanding government over-reach into our lives.

We, the taxpayers, are the guardians against government over-reach (and government silliness) and it's time we started acting like it.

That was the point Conan. You're killing me. I don't want a Sex Offender Registry. Especially since it takes all kinds of crazy things to get listed. Like, oh, drunkenly peeing in an alleyway all by yourself. Or being an underage male in a consensual relationship with an underage female.

But how do you get rid of bad laws like this? By sharing the pain with everyone! Make clear it means nothing and then get rid of it.

Make clear it means nothing and then get rid of it. ~ Ben at October 3, 2018 1:04 PM

Okay, that explanation makes sense.

"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." ~ Ulysses Simpson Grant

Patrick said, in 2016:

But have you stopped to consider what that might entail? If you falsely accuse someone of misdemeanor battery, you'll be sentenced to a year of probation, anger management and community service.

If you falsely accuse someone of murder, you'll get the electric chair.

These are the two extremes and I'm not comfortable with either of them. The former is too lenient and the latter is too harsh.
_____________________________________

Let's say there are four men, A through D.

Let's say A murders B, which in this case would result in a 20-year-sentence. C, for some psychopathic reason, cold-bloodedly chooses to frame D for the murder. (Maybe A and C are brothers.) Would most people - including judges - suggest that C get 20 years as well as A? No, and there are gut reasons for that which are not necessarily unreasonable. It also goes without saying that just because murder sometimes warrants the death penalty, that does not mean that a false accusation should.

Maybe the electric chair is what you deserve if you falsely accuse someone of murder. You're playing fast and loose with someone else's life. Maybe if you knew you were gambling your own by doing so....

Fortunately, that's not how it works. A murder conviction takes solid evidence - habeas corpus and a bunch of other obscure Latin phrases. You generally first have to prove the crime took place (dead body, cause of death, etc.) and then prove the accused did it.

Rape or sexual assault claims, however, often have very little evidence except the testimony of the accuser - especially if the claims are for crimes committed in the past.

There's a reason the prohibition against "bearing false witness against your neighbor" was included in the Ten Commandments and Mosaic Law. In pre-CSI days, eyewitness testimony was generally all that was required to convict; often being all that was available. The Salem witch trial convictions were based entirely off of eyewitness testimony.

One more thing. If A murders B and then tries to frame someone else, would most judges turn the 20-year sentence into a 40-year sentence? I doubt it.

Another issue is women already don't get charged the same as men for the same crime in our justice system. So what if you increase the punishment if they aren't going to be charged in the first place?

Two points about the verse quoted by Snoopy:

1. In Jewish law there is no long-term incarceration. You liquidate your assets to pay assessed damages, or are sold into indentured servitude to pay off those damanges. Some moral/religious transgressions would also involve corporeal punishment such as lashes.

So the idea of someone wasting away in prison (as pointed out by other posters) is not relevant.

2. This verse is interpreted as applying to witnesses who collude to fabricate a claim.

In Jewish law a single witness is generally not sufficient. Two or more witnesses - examined separately by the judges (there are no lawyers) - is the minimum standard for acceptable testimony.

The textbook example in the Talmud when this verse is invoked goes like this:

1. Two or more witnesses collude to frame-up a victim with mutually corroborating testimony.

2. Other witnesses show up and say "It is impossible for you to have witnessed what you say you did, you were with us at the time". And their testimony holds up under examination, or is corroborated.

3. First set of witnesses is given the punishment due the crime they wanted to pin on their mark.