Should False Rape Allegations Be Charged?

[Augarundus]

Thats some creative reasoning, to get that to stick though prosecutor would need to concede imprisonment is equivalent to kidnapping... and some judge would need to agree with that interpretation. Thats tough call...

We would only have to accept that imprisonment on unjustified grounds is the equivalent of kidnapping (or, even simpler, only that unjustified imprisonment is a crime), in the same way that we can accept that, when a cop shoots someone for an unjust reason, it's murder; but cops can still shoot people under certain conditions and we'd consider it just.

Throwing someone in jail because he's committed rape is both legally and morally distinct from throwing someone in jail for no reason at all- we accept that the former is justified and that the latter is not. If the latter is unjust, then clearly the act of doing it must also be unjust, and, because this means that one individuals has victimized another in the course of their unjust action, it seems to me that a crime has taken place.

[Greater Weselton]

The innocent should not be charged.

[Free States of Dixon]

False allegations of any crime should be punished, of course. They have the potential to ruin the life of an otherwise innocent person depending on the crime. False rape allegations are abhorrent and no exception. In the western society today where rape and rapists is extremely looked down upon and rightfully so, false rape allegation cause huge damage to the public image of the accused.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Filing a false police report is already a crime. I don't see how this is an issue.

[Skeckoa]

Because there becomes the problem of when exactly we know something is "false". That's certainly the biggest issue.

So just because they're tricky to find out people get an out-of-jail free card for potentially ruining someone's life? Yeah, fuck that.

I think you may of been misunderstanding Caninope. What they mean to say is that there are tons of cases of people who were raped but have no way to prove it, thus the assailant goes scotch-free. How much proof does it take to turn that unknown case and turn it around into being a blatantly false claim that warrants repercussions? (That's how I understood Caninope, I may be wrong, feel free to correct me)

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

So just because they're tricky to find out people get an out-of-jail free card for potentially ruining someone's life? Yeah, fuck that.

I think you may of been misunderstanding Caninope. What they mean to say is that there are tons of cases of people who were raped but have no way to prove it, thus the assailant goes scotch-free. How much proof does it take to turn that unknown case and turn it around into being a blatantly false claim that warrants repercussions? (That's how I understood Caninope, I may be wrong, feel free to correct me)

Just the same as with false allegations for any other crime I presume.

[The Yorkshire Commonwealth]

A person is attempting to irreparably ruin someone's life by critically undermining the criminal justice system.

If someone can come up with a legitimate reason why that shouldn't be treated as a crime, they deserve a fucking medal.

[Vassenor]

A person is attempting to irreparably ruin someone's life by critically undermining the criminal justice system.

If someone can come up with a legitimate reason why that shouldn't be treated as a crime, they deserve a fucking medal.

Because most rape trials end when the victim is bludgeoned into a breakdown by the defence counsel in order to prove that they consented to the act after all. Why should someone who had to go through that be further branded as a false accuser and have their life irreparably ruined?

[Soviet Haaregrad]

If malice can be demonstrated it may be reasonable to pursue a case.

I'm split because false rape allegations are rare and depending on the standard required this could have a chilling effect towards people reporting rapes and sexual assaults. That said, a false rape charge can destroy someone's life.

[Pope Joan]

Alleging rape is such a dangerous action, causing more repercussion than any other allegations could, even of murder or treason, that yes there should be consequences if the allegation is shown to be both untrue and malicious.

That means you do not just punish somebody for making a mistake of fact, or for being otherwise injured but not "raped" within the definition of the law. There would have to be malice, similar to the requirement for libel.

[The Yorkshire Commonwealth]

A person is attempting to irreparably ruin someone's life by critically undermining the criminal justice system.

If someone can come up with a legitimate reason why that shouldn't be treated as a crime, they deserve a fucking medal.

Because most rape trials end when the victim is bludgeoned into a breakdown by the defence counsel in order to prove that they consented to the act after all. Why should someone who had to go through that be further branded as a false accuser and have their life irreparably ruined?

Many rapes can't be proven beyond doubt. Which is a shame, but an unfortunate truth, and a damn-sight better than: 'Well... They look a bit dodgy.'
The same is the case with false-accusations. They are only charged in the tiny proportion which can be proven beyond doubt to be purposeful false accusations, e.g. a person had accused someone who was out of the country during the specified time, and can also be proven to not be confused regarding the time they thought the crime had occurred.

Claiming that trials either end with an accused jailed or an accuser jailed is just silliness.

[Atlanticatia]

No. It could scare rape victims into not reporting their rapes - they might think they'll be prosecuted if they don't have enough proof.

[Galloism]

No. It could scare rape victims into not reporting their rapes - they might think they'll be prosecuted if they don't have enough proof.

I bet that's why we don't ever see people report theft to their insurance. They're afraid they'll get charged with insurance fraud if they don't have enough proof.

[The Merchant Republics]

I don't think we need to make it harder or more potentially shameful for rape victims to come forward.

Yes, allegations of rape can ruin a life, I would perhaps, make a civil tort law regarding it. So that victims of that sort of chicanery can be compensated, but even then I see potential for abuse. (Although I suppose one could already file a tort under defamation of character statutes.)

[The Yorkshire Commonwealth]

Think for a second about how your life would change following a false rape-conviction:

-Several (but probably not as many as you'd like to believe) years in jail (and we know what happens in jail.)
-Total social alienation
-Psychological anguish
-No chance of employment far above the level of factory work

Not the worst thing in the world (in the context, one particular thing naturally jumps to mind as an example of something worse)... But not a day at the beach by any means. Now imagine someone wanted to give the person who'd try to put you through the above total legal immunity, and wanted to set it into law that anyone else who did that to someone in the future would likewise be completely free of fear of legal recompense.
How would you feel about that person?

Now this isn't to say that purposefully crying-rape is anything but a rare occurrence, and certainly shouldn't be what you assume to be the case if you hear about an accusation being leveled. But heck, being murdered with a 17th century whaling-harpoon is rare, and you'd still be pissed if someone got away with it! And, it only has to happen once.
People have enough tools with which to destroy each other's lives. They don't need one from which they are literally immune from legal repercussions.

[Great Nepal]

I don't think we need to make it harder or more potentially shameful for rape victims to come forward.

Yes, allegations of rape can ruin a life, I would perhaps, make a civil tort law regarding it. So that victims of that sort of chicanery can be compensated, but even then I see potential for abuse. (Although I suppose one could already file a tort under defamation of character statutes.)

That is worst than criminal proceedings, by allowing civil suit while not allowing criminal one, you are merely requiring accuser to on balance on probabilities be lying: balance established by innocent verdict on rape charge. Essentially anyone who made the accusation but couldn't prove it would be liable under this system.
By making it crime, and prosecuting it under criminal law prosecution would have responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that allegation were in fact false. This standard is not met merely because accused as acquitted, therefore not everyone who couldn't prove their allegations are punished - only those who genuinely lied are.

[Uieurnthlaal]

If an accusation of rape is sufficient to harm or libel the accused, then the problem lies in the judicial system. Rape victims need an avenue to exact just punishment, just as the accused need an avenue to obtain just treatment. The only way I see to have this done is with a trial system in which both parties are able to lay their cases in private, without gossip or media attention.

[Skeckoa]

No. It could scare rape victims into not reporting their rapes - they might think they'll be prosecuted if they don't have enough proof.

I think this goes back to Caninope's point about when does an ambiguous claim (no evidence) turn into a blatantly false claim (the one in the video had the woman demanded that the man be sent to stand trial, of course assuming that what we see is the entirety of what happened). I'm sure you'd agree with me that ambiguous cases should never lead to legal repercussions (setting aside social repercussions) to the possible victim.

[West Aurelia]

False accusations of any crime should be charged.

[Sebastianbourg]

No. It could scare rape victims into not reporting their rapes - they might think they'll be prosecuted if they don't have enough proof.

There is a difference between dubious allegations and allegation which can be proven false.

[Shilya]

Yes, they should. Of course, only if it's proven that they were indeed made up. A lack on evidence to convict isn't nearly enough for that.

There needs to be one exemption, though: If the accuser comes forwards on their own and retracts the previous accusations, there's no prosecution.

[Southern Test Islands]

If your life is negatively affected because someone has made false allegations against you, then the severity of their penalty should also take that into consideration. Falsely accusing someone of rape can ruin their life before it ever even sees a court room. Penalties for liars should be harsh, but at the same time this should not dissuade actual victims from being able to come forward.

You'd have to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were lying.

I agree with this, lying and simply not having your allegation proven are not the same thing and this should be recognised by any law on the matter.

[FutureAmerica]

Yes, a false rape allegation should be a crime and treated as perjury. However, how do you handle a situation when an actual rapist is not convicted by the jury. Is the accuser then accused of a false allegation?

[SaintB]

If its a provably false allegation than it should be treated like any other falsely reported crime.

[Galloism]

Yes, a false rape allegation should be a crime and treated as perjury. However, how do you handle a situation when an actual rapist is not convicted by the jury. Is the accuser then accused of a false allegation?

Not unless it's provably false, and the accuser knew it.