Should false accusers be forced to suffer the punishments they tried to get dished out to their victims?

Question

Such as, a false accustion of rape should get the accuser as many years in prison as she tried to get dished out to her victim, a false accustion of assault should get the accuser tossed into prison for as many years as he tried to get foisted on his victim, etc., etc.. with corresponding fines being paid directly to the victims from the seized assets of the false accusers.

There are too many thoughtful answers. I can't decide which is best. >.<

I'm gonna wimp out again and put this up for a vote.

Answer 1

I would say YES, but ONLY IF it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accuser had malicious intent in accusing that person.
This would be a very powerful deterrent for women who blackmail men by threatening to accuse them of a sexual offense. (This is a very real problem facing the society today)

Answer 2

There are different laws in every state to deal with false accusers. I agree that they should heavily be prosecuted, but to what extent depends on what the state law says. I don't believe in "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," as we can never get exactly even with anybody. And we can't convince somebody to change their mind about anything by beating them. We must let our laws deal with the ones who choose to break them. And if there's a law you think needs changed, become politically actve and change it. That's the great thing about living in the USA; we can get educated and actually change what we don't like. Then we can't complain because we did something rather than sit and watch. And vote! Voting does change some laws and every vote is important. People feel more in control who do their civic duty and become politically active when motivated to do so. And people respect them.

Answer 3

I don't think that would work, as it would be too difficult to distinguish between the "false" or fraudulent accusations and those where the jury simply did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not commit the crime he/she was accused of.

It also seems fundamentally unfair, since the accuser is not the one with final authority over whether criminal prosecutions are brought, but rather the state. In that sense, we would have to hold prosecutors as liable as the accusers for bringing the criminal action at all. If that were the case, nobody would likely pursue a career in criminal prosecution, and our criminal system would likely fail for want of a lawyer to oppose the criminal in question.

Answer 4

No, because the legal system is responsible for protecting your rights, not the victim. The victim may only remember sketchy facts and the prosecutors office knows that much more solid evidence is required to convict anyone.
If the victim gives false evidence with malice of thought and there's proof then certainly that is a crime.
Victims often give inaccurate testimony which may point to an innocent bystander. It is very common for victims to change or reverse their testimony when they are confronted with evidence indicating they are committing perjury.
So, the laws on the books.

Answer 5

I say Hell yes they would of gave you that time and didn't;t care knowing it was a lie and they should get Double .......Teach them a Good Hard Truth stay OUT of peoples lives ..

Answer 6

no, because maybe they're not accusing out of meanness. maybe someone really believes that someone is guilty. maybe someone was lied to and presented a case that was made to look like someone else was guilty of a crime and he went on and made the accusation.

if you can prove the intent of hurting someone then yes.

Answer 7

Unfortunately, as the charges would not be the same, the sentence would never equate. So, no.

Answer 8

In my world, yes.

Answer 9

For sure they should be punished. As for the cash damages, that what civil court is for.

Answer 10

YES, YES, YES!!!!!!! hell yes!!!! isn't the one falsely accused a victim???!!!!!!!