Let’s say a man is accused by a women, a group of women as being a sexual predator, or rapist.
After all is said and done, no evidence is found, and the accusers are found to have lied.
By this point, realistically, the accused reputation is ruined, probably lost their job or company.
Is there anything the falsely accused can receive as compensation?
IANAL, but I would think the accused could sue the false-accuser for slander.
Man, that would be bad luck. I doubt there is any way to get compensated. A lawsuit against the accusers probably would generate much in the way of cash, but maybe regained reputation would help in future employment.
If the accusation has involved making a false report to the police, presumably there’s a possiblity of criminal proceedings against those who made the report, though this isn’t something the accused person can control, and it won’t result in compensation for him.
The victim of false accusations should insist that they be criminally charged. The state should offer simple pleas for the accusers that they’ll accept, which means they’ve admitted to make false charges, and then it’s a slam dunk in civil court. Whether the accusers have any assets, and the victim can eventually collect is another matter, but it should restore his reputation. However, considering his legal costs and employment or business losses, he has little chance of ever being made whole again.
Just pointing out that these two things aren’t necessarily connected. There may be no physical evidence of sexual assault, and having the trial end in a “not guilty” verdict doesn’t say anything about the veracity of the accusers statements. If there is evidence that accusers actually and purposely lied, then that is in fact evidence in favor of the accused.
In short, are you asking about a case that simply isn’t proven, or a case where it’s been shown that the accusers were lying?
Look at O.J. Simpson. He was acquitted, nobody really believes him innocent, though. His rep. is irreparably damaged.
Towards restoring their reputation, media outlets often publish corrections/retractions when they discover previously published information is inaccurate. The story of lying accusers would be almost as newsworthy as the original accusations.
Depending on their relationship with their previous employer they may be eligible for for the same or similar position at another location (i.e. office branch). At the very least, they should be able to get the false accusation removed from their personnel records (so they’re considered eligible for rehire, and can use that company as a reference).
The OP - the bit you quoted, even - specifies that the accusers have been found to have lied.
Yeah, Telemark seems to be purposefully thread shitting.
The answer…depends. A purposefully false allegation is different from one made under an honest but mistaken belief.
What is interesting to me is that almost all (in fact all that I can think of) of these accusations are based on the numbers of people making the accusations. Not many people notice when one person accuses another-when it is six people accusing one person that is news. However, we rarely (as in never to my knowledge) have six people speak out in defense of an accused. And yes I have seen the stories about the women who have ‘accused’ actor X of going out on nice dates and just being a nice guy. As uplifting as those stories are, those aren’t examples of an accused being defended. If the actor/politician/businessman/etc is accused by six people surely there are six people that person has helped without any mis-behavior. Why don’t those people speak up? Do they and their stories aren’t heard? Would it matter?
It would seem that it should be a defense against these accusations and the the accused would have a strong incentive to make some calls. Either the accused can’t-there aren’t six people he helped without sexual harassment or that the individuals don’t wish to speak up. Not sure why the reverse doesn’t happen more often. Personally I can’t imagine a person being such a creep that in his entire life he hasn’t simply helped six people. But perhaps I don’t understand the mentality of the people involved.
That’s not true. For instance, a few years back there was an odious politician and his wife falsely accused. Then there’s
etc
Surely these are the character witnesses in a defence? But you also have to look at the backlash against women who haven’t fully supported the campaign. I would not be surprised if women were fearful of speaking out.
What do you mean by accused? Like, it went to court or in a more informal/social setting/work?
Let’s get this out of the way: the scenario outlined above is extremely rare.
In most sexual assault cases resulting in an acquittal, dismissal or similar, such a decision is reached due to the prosecuting body’s failure to adduce sufficient evidence to demonstrate an accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rarely is such failure due to a complainant fabricating a rape and even more rarely can it be shown that a complainant deliberately lied about a rape.
Assuming a scenario where a complainant deliberately and knowingly laid a false charge of rape or other sexual assault, and assuming this can be proved in at least a civil court, which has a lower standard of proof than a criminal court, the wrongfully accused has the following options: (Note this is largely based on the law of my home country and what i can remember from law school but unlikely to be substantially dissimilar to other Anglophone countries)
Firstly, the wrongfully accused can sue for defamation/slander/libel. I don’t know what its like in the UK and USA, but here, on the basis that the purpose of a defamation suit is to restore one’s reputation, the monetary award in a successful suit is pretty small and almost certainly dwarfed by the legal costs. (small, as in “I can’t even buy a new hatchback with this!” small)
Secondly, both the complainant and the prosecuting authority can be sued for malicious prosecution, if applicable;
Thirdly, you can sue the complainant for your monetary losses which can be proven to have arisen as a result of the false charge. This is only worthwhile if the complainant is a woman (or for that matter, a man) of some means.
I agree with you, WilyQuixote, that it is extremely rare, but it does happen. And it is usually very, very bad for the accused. The public being what it is, people are far more likely to remember the accusations rather than the exonerations, and between the time of accusation and exoneration, the accused will have their names and reputations dragged through the mud and worse by most anyone with access to a public forum. Everyone has an opinion, and negative opinions sell ads better than positive ones.
In the Duke lacrosse case, the accused were able to get a settlement from Duke University. In the Tawana Brawley case, the accused was able to win suits for defamation against prominent community members, including Rev. Al Sharpton, and also won a default judgment against Brawley when she didn’t show. IMO, it nowhere near compensated for what he was put through, with the court of public opinion and public ostracization being far worse than what he was put through by the legal system.
It’s cases like these that keep the MRA up at night. Personally, this issue isn’t one that causes me to lose any sleep at all. I worry more about the alligators in our NYC sewers attacking.
That’s why I asked. The OP also said that there was no evidence, but if the accusers were have been found to have lied, that’s pretty significant evidence. I was trying to understand if the scenario you proposed was simple a case of “he said, she said” with no physical evidence either way; or a case where someone has been demonstrated to have falsely accused someone else for whatever reason. It sounds like you’re discussing the latter. I think WilyQuixote covered it pretty well.
Moderator Note
And this is junior modding. I don’t find the post in question to be threadshitting at all. If you have a problem with someone’s post, report it rather than responding yourself. No warning issued, but don’t do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I should point to the recent case of Gian Gomeshi, here in Canada. Fired from his job (prominent public radio host) after several woman alleged that over the years he had engaged in violent (attempted) sex. (choking, etc.) the case IIRC was thrown out because it was shown that the women had lied about being in contact to compare stories before the trial. He’s still persona non grata in the entertainment community; that there was not enough credible evidence, given the tainted witnesses, to get a guilty verdict did not mean that he has/had a chance to recoup his reputation. The risk in suing for libel is that he then has to answer the accusations to a lower standard of proof than “beyond reasonable doubt”.
The trouble with actual criminal charges is, in the case of assorted varieties of sexual assault, it often boils down to he-said-she-said. Absent any physical evidence contradicting the competing claims, can you really take one person’s word over another’s as the only proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
But really, the OP points to the dilemma so many accused - not just sexual assault defendants - face. Canada had a spate of prominent falsely accused /falsely convicted in the news over the last few decades. You can google Stephen Truscott (sentenced to death at 14), Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophonow. All charged, at some point convicted typically due to police with a single focus and willing to “stretch the truth” to fit the crime… then exonerated. Some will forever be haunted by questions. The ones convicted and in jail at least had some compensation from the government when it was shown misguided policework was to blame.
But basically, if you are wrongly accused, you’re screwed.
To be fair, if the acquittal is prominent enough, like the cases I mention, everyone knows. The usual joke about crime reporting was that the arrest would be front page news and charges dropped later is on page ten. However, I heard about one case in a small town where the fellow was accused of murdering a girl. the case was so weak, the judge threw it out in the preliminary hearing and raked the police over the coals (Stupid stuff - like he washed the car, “obviously to destroy evidence”…7 days after the murder, 3 days after the body was found). That didn’t stop the police from harassing - when the suspect’s wife left him, the police were interviewing her the same day. They key piece of evidence in the hearing - a blood-soaked rag - DNA technology available 10 years later showed it to be what it was claimed, not the victims blood but a family member’s. but… that didn’t stop the fellow from having to leave town immediately after his release; there were people convinced he did it (he was seen in the area…) and all the lawsuits in the world are not going to fix that.
For that matter, at least in Canada interviews can only ask about “convictions for which you have not received a pardon”; I have heard that some US states allow a prospective employer to ask about arrests, even if no conviction. Therefore, any arrest regardless of the truth will forever taint your job prospects. the damage is done.
But, the short answer is - even a lawsuit probably won’t fix a reputation issue. Most accusers, too, probably don’t have the resources to pay you back for a legal fight, let alone pay any extra award for lost wages and lost prospects. Like everything else in life, sometimes fate screws you over. Just the same as if you are arrested, go to trial, and are found not guilty, nobody jumps in to reimburse you for your huge legal bill.
I feel compelled to add, there is apparently little they could do in civil court (if someone lied on the witness stand, that is).
IANAL either. But it says in my law dictionary, lying on the witness stand isn’t “actionable” as slander or libel. It is in fact perjury, which is a much more serious charge anyways.
Crash course in law: the only defense against perjury is the sincere belief that what you said was true. Even if it is later found to be false, because that basically is how our legal system works. Courts are like crucibles, someone once said, where we burn away irrelevant facts to get a more pure product. In ordinary slander and libel cases, the only defense is the truth (I.e., intent is not an issue). Except in cases involving public figures, where actual malice has to proven.
Carry on:)
Jian Ghomeshi
Maybe that’s also because he settled with the last, separate accuser in such a way that his actual guilt is hardly in question even if not a formal guilty verdict.