[bawolff]

If someone has been found guilty of 200 actual assualts, by all means, exponentially increasing punishment is fine with me.

However 200 (potentially false) accusations of assualt shouldn't matter. Otherwise a bad actor could just repeatedly accuse someone until the accusee hits the 200 (or whatever) limit.

[b0rsuk]

Agree. Law mechanisms can be abused. In Poland we had a case where a shoplifter (Stanisław Belski) was caught stealing coffee and sentenced. Security and the owner tossed a couple extra items into his bag to get him over a threshold so he qualified for a harsher verdict. The thief protested, but was found insane and delusional. In classic Soviet style, he was detained for 8 years and drugged in a psychiatric hospital. It wasn't until a new young inspector showed up that his protest was finally heard. Even when the thief was released, the staff of the hospital tried to crush the man by publishing his sensitive information. The thief received high monetary compensation, but no one was actually sentenced for the abuse of the law system.

[the-dude]

In NL, doing fake accusations is a crime in itself ( and it is prosecuted too ). In Dutch I believe it is called a 'valse aangifte'.

[minot]

Probably does not apply in all cases? Imagine someone beats me up or something but is found not guilty for some reason. Would I be charged with lying under oath or false accusations? It just increases the stakes for any lawsuit.

If I remember correctly, the previous district attorney in Manhattan was very friendly with the wealthy people. Imagine how much they could legally wreck your life if this was left up to the prosecution.

[koenigdavidmj]

Insufficient evidence to convict someone else is not sufficient evidence to convict you. They’d still have to convict a jury of your peers that you did so.

[Aeolun]

Applies in all cases, but it has to be deliberate. You can accuse as many people as you want if you actually (reasonably) believe they’ve done you wrong.