IANAL -teeheehee- but had this happened in the U.K. she would have gotten a suspended sentence, in Australia she would also get a suspended sentence but the judge will add insult to injury by giving her the sole custody of the child, and in Canada the only way to win a trial like this is if you can afford to go through an appeals court because Canadian judges prioritize feels over the law .

The thing that gets me on this is that the legal fees to exonerate him came to $40,000. Implied in the thread is that the accuser is judgement-proof.

It's so terrible. So terrible.

I believe that those who can be proved to have falsely accused others of crimes -- whether sexual assault or other crimes -- should do the jail time the accused would likely have gotten and be made to pay restitution through a work program (if they don't have money or assets).

-- whether sexual assault or other crimes --
__________________________________________________

Thanks. But...when will judges - or laypeople - say the same thing? Maybe there are good reasons they don't advocate that for ANY false accusation.

As I've mentioned, while it's common enough for a murderer to try to frame someone else, I've never heard of a judge who DOUBLED the sentence for the murderer when that frame-up was exposed. (IF any judge did, but the sentences were to be served concurrently, I hardly see how that counts.)

She purposely and with malicious intent doctored a video such that it was evidence of a crime being committed against herself by an innocent party.

That's not a petty crime. For instance:

It cost him $40,000+ and tireless efforts by my law partner and I to clear his name, prevent an indictment, and to have his parenting rights with his 6 year old child restored.

https://twitter.com/CriminelleLaw/status/1067657319658545152

What isn't obvious is whether this got any news coverage? he wasn't indicted, so maybe he's been spared the whole "indictment appears on page A1 above the fold, the next story about exoneration appears on page D22" and googling him turns up a rape accusation as hit #1.

Had she been successful, this is as close as you can get to murdering someone without actually killing them.

Please tell me he's suing for costs, damages, defamation, and whatever else applies.

Somewhat related (an absence of due process)— Didja all see this?

Edelstein is a totally okay film reviewer.

He was never going to be my favorite. I don't think a critic who appears after your thirtieth birthday can ever establish a foothold in your trust: Such figures need to have lead you out of some condition of (youthful) ignorance, even if their own best judgments often don't impress you.

Edelstein was like Bobby Darin. A fine singer! But not Elvis, and not Sinatra. Edelstein was not Ebert, and he wasn't Kael. But you'd never feel active regret for reading one of his reviews. I liked him in a punishingly passionless way.

But to get blown out of the water for making an anal sex joke about Last Tango in Paris?

(...And I'm assuming that's what happened here, because I haven't followed the link. There comes a point where a [A.] a person doesn't need more tawdry details in their appreciation of the world and [B.] getting to curious about such things is what causes the problem Amy's talking about. Somebody do the reading and tell me if I got it wrong.)

Sheesh... This is much bigger than 'casting the first stone.' (I personally would be lying under an ever-burgeoning tower of pebbles.) Last Tango was basically the Origin Story of buttsex humor in American culture. I was in 8th grade when it came out, which is basically Detonation Hour for such explosions.

(Never saw the movie, either. I read once that the actress's career and public demeanor never recovered from the implicit ignominy of the scene, which was basically a theatrical improvisation by Brando. The 70's were weird.)

This is Year Two of a sexual-'misconduct' scalp hunt. The lesson seems NOT to be that one should carry oneself with spotlessly prim bearing in all contexts from birth to the grave.

The lesson seems to be that many with moderately-remunerative careers in lesser placements of public renown aren't nearly as secure as they'd thought... The coin of their identity can as easily be spent by the public in an episode of unremarkable humiliation as in a few more years of mundane but agreeable work (films, film reviews, stand-up, whatever).

Be so good they can't live without you or be dorkless & gray.




I don't actually regret my anal sex jokes, no matter what I might say someday when my job's on the line.

Assfuck.

HAR!!

"Believe in the standards you would want if you were accused of a crime."

So.

What if you are acquitted, and then somebody sues you in civil court, where you are found responsible financially for a crime for which you were found "Not Guilty"?

@ Radwaste: See O.J. Simpson.

Nick: so, does that mean you approve the same thing for yourself?

And, now that I think about it, it's pretty common for juvenile delinquents to accuse each other, wildly, of being the ringleader when they're caught.

But even if all they get is probation and/or community service, again, how often do we hear of THOSE sentences being doubled because of any false accusations they've made? Seldom or never, right? So why is it surprising that judges don't double PRISON sentences for false accusations made by people who are already criminals?