As the Duke rape case is coming close to imploding, it seems fairly obvious that the accuser, even if lying, faces very little risk of any legal penalty. Granted, a few cases, such as this rather light sentence (consider that the falsely accused got a comparable sentence to the offender!), do receive (light) punishment, but the overwhelming majority of false claims do not. Given that a false accusation of rape can have a grave impact on the falsely accused and that relatively little evidence is enough to damn the accused in the court of public opinion, but also realizing that we don’t want to scare off legitimate rape claims even if they have little evidence, do you think that there should be more extensive prosecution of lying rape accusers?
Of course they should.
It’s hard to figure out where to draw the line between “obviously lying rape accusers” and “unable to prove it rape accusers.” The former should be punished. The latter shouldn’t. But how do we tell the difference?
Well, there’s a big difference in reality,but little in legality, between a false rape charge, and one where the accussed was simply found “not guilty” due to the fact the prosecution couldn’t show “proof beyond reasonable doubt”.
Especially when keeping in mind the evidence that rape is under-reported. People who make maliciously false accusations should be punished, but it would be terrible to scare legitimate victims out of seeking justice.
You prosecute.
To find the false accuser guilty, a jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied. The mere fact that her attacker isn’t convicted doesn’t reach that level; it could simply be that the evidence of her truthful accusation wasn’t strong enough. But if here is sufficient evidence to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she lied, then she’s guilty.
Yes, but certainly we shouldn’t prosecute every claimed victim whose claimed attacker isn’t found “guilty”. Just the act of prosecution is serious punishment.
I’m a bit unclear. Do you mean more prosecution than any other instance of filing a false crime report?
What are the current penalties for filing a false crime report? Does it make any difference whether you file a false armed robbery report because you’re the manager and you want to get your subordinate in trouble, or because you want to cover the fact that you lost the store’s profits in a poker game on the way to the bank?
We already have perjury laws for that - I don’t see why anything additional is necessary for rape cases.
“More” than what? More prosecution than false accusations of other crimes? I don’t see why. More prosecution than the moment? First I would need to see if false accusations of rape are prosecuted at a lower rate than false accusations of other serious crimes.
As far as I know, there is no credible evidence suggesting rape is falsely alleged any more or indeed any less than other serious offenses. Supposedly the overwhelming majority of false claims are obvious to the investigating officers at an early stage, and get dropped then and there. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion, and generally seek to preserve their success rates - rape is a very tough crime to prove in many cases, and so prosecutors are very wary of taking on weak cases - I could speculate on the Duke case here, but I don’t know enough about it. Let’s say it doesn’t seem to fit the typical pattern.
Perhaps because the accuser has a automatic unconstitutional advantage, rape shield laws.
This is a classic example of begging the question. You prosecute who?
What’s unconstitutional about them?
One could argue they have a chilling effect on one’s right to confront his/her accuser. However, the rape shield laws I am familiar with only bar the name of the victim from publication as with the famous Central Park Jogger…
Is anyone else besides Diogenes confused about who I am suggesting be prosecuted in the above exchange?
Nor am I suggesting we add any additional laws. I am suggesting we prosecute when the existing laws are broken.
As the Duke lacrosse team can certainly testify.
I almost started another thread, but since it’s related to the OP I’ll post it here. Periodically, some legal eagles suggest that perjury laws be changed to reflect the potential punishment involved in the crime at stake. So, if you perjure yourself and accuse someone of rape and you are found guilty of perjury, your sentence would be limited to the sentence the alleged rapist involved could have gotten. Remember, the alleged rapist’s acquital would not be sufficient to prove perjury. A separate trial for perjury would be necessary and (as is always the case for perjury, AFAIK) it would have to be proved that the accusation was knowingly made false (merely being wrong wouldn’t qualify). Theoretically, this means someone could get the death penalty for lying about a murder suspect’s actions.
What say all?
I think that’s a good place to start. From this point we can change the level of punishment, whether this proposed one is too high or too low, but I think this is a good jump-off point.
They were prosecuted?