google says the incident was in 2002 and the reneg in 2011 (cleared in 2012) so it seems like she’d have to be 16 at time of accusation, courts took a few years to actually jail him, and she would be about 25 when she came clean. It says the statute of limitations for lying in court was passed by the time he was cleared, so no chance for a counter-suit or he would have pursued* it. The accuser was ordered to pay back money she’d gotten from the school district for claiming an unsafe environment.
It says the statute of limitations for lying in court was passed by the time he was cleared
That is such utter fucking bullshit. I wonder if that’s why she finally came clean knowing she was safe from the consequences of her actions, alternatively he could still be in there if that was the case and they didn’t run out.
So you cant even extend them without risking innocent people staying in gaol longer.
That actually highlights an interesting conflict - if the fear of prosecution keeps someone from coming clean until they’re “safe”, would it be better to not have a punishment for it at all? That seems unfair, of course, but is it more unfair than being falsely imprisoned longer than one needs to be? Maybe punishing people that are caught and pardoning those that come clean?
Better let the guilty go unpunished than the innocent suffer.
It’s the very cornerstone of justice, a system of law which sacrifices the innocent in its zeal is generally not considered justice, but tyranny. Examples include things like witch trials, or the Khmer Rouge.
Practically speaking: The right time to sentence an accuser for lying is during the trial against the accused, not after.
I appreciate this lighthearted solution in otherwise depressing thread. Of course in the real world for this to work, news sources and search engines would have to be censored, and lawyers would have to lie.
If you lie in court and it results in consequences for someone else, there should be no statute, and you should have to face the same consequences they did.
They actually won a $2.6 million judgement against her, whereas she originally won $1.5 million. Failed to show up in court. Broke little gold digger now.
Of course kid can do fucked up things, but at 10 years old I disagree, she heard that somewhere for sure and isn’t smart enough to be held responsible.
There could be another culprit if she was 16 too. People don’t like to admit it but a 16 year old is still basically a child. We don’t know what went down all we can do is be glad he was finally exonerated.
If you look at the Wikipedia entry for “age of criminal responsibility,” quite a few countries think that children under a certain age just plain cannot be held responsible for a crime. Of course, in the US it’s different and there are some states where age does exempt from responsibility and some where it doesn’t.
For me it’s a slider, at 15 I would agree with you, but 10 I definitely think the parents should be the ones in court.
Would the monkey really be put down tho ? If it still holds the flamethrower of course, because it’s still a threat, but after the fact I don’t think so.
Children in these situations don’t need incarceration they need therapy and rehabilitation. Putting them behind bars is just a waste at best, and doesn’t in any way make the world a better place.
I think sometimes people respond to punishment. They/we don’t want the consequences of an action so we change our behavior. With that said, our prison system is terrible. A person’s punishment should be loss of freedom (only). IMO we should still treat prisoners with some dignity and they should be safe and reasonably comfortable.
At the very least, those are kids who need an evaluation and probably some sort of therapy to help them become reasonably well-adjusted adults. Try and correct their course early so they won’t go so far astray.
10 years is way below criminal maturity. At that age I’d very much rather have a close look at everyone who interviewed her. It’s terribly easy to get kids to make false statements.
So does that mean she was 16 at the time of the accusation? So, 22 when she recanted? Or was she 10 and then 16? Or is she just always 16?
google says the incident was in 2002 and the reneg in 2011 (cleared in 2012) so it seems like she’d have to be 16 at time of accusation, courts took a few years to actually jail him, and she would be about 25 when she came clean. It says the statute of limitations for lying in court was passed by the time he was cleared, so no chance for a counter-suit or he would have pursued* it. The accuser was ordered to pay back money she’d gotten from the school district for claiming an unsafe environment.
Oh wow, so they reward you for keeping up the lies as long as possible. Nice.
That is such utter fucking bullshit. I wonder if that’s why she finally came clean knowing she was safe from the consequences of her actions, alternatively he could still be in there if that was the case and they didn’t run out.
So you cant even extend them without risking innocent people staying in gaol longer.
That actually highlights an interesting conflict - if the fear of prosecution keeps someone from coming clean until they’re “safe”, would it be better to not have a punishment for it at all? That seems unfair, of course, but is it more unfair than being falsely imprisoned longer than one needs to be? Maybe punishing people that are caught and pardoning those that come clean?
Seems unsolvable :(
Better let the guilty go unpunished than the innocent suffer.
It’s the very cornerstone of justice, a system of law which sacrifices the innocent in its zeal is generally not considered justice, but tyranny. Examples include things like witch trials, or the Khmer Rouge.
Practically speaking: The right time to sentence an accuser for lying is during the trial against the accused, not after.
This solution is, say there isn’t a punishment, then when the person confesses, punish them anyway.
I appreciate this lighthearted solution in otherwise depressing thread. Of course in the real world for this to work, news sources and search engines would have to be censored, and lawyers would have to lie.
How do you envision this working past the first time? O.o
If you lie in court and it results in consequences for someone else, there should be no statute, and you should have to face the same consequences they did.
They actually won a $2.6 million judgement against her, whereas she originally won $1.5 million. Failed to show up in court. Broke little gold digger now.
deleted by creator
If she’s 10 there is another culprit behind.
deleted by creator
Of course kid can do fucked up things, but at 10 years old I disagree, she heard that somewhere for sure and isn’t smart enough to be held responsible.
You might like the Danish movie The Hunt (Jagten). It touches on this very subject.
There could be another culprit if she was 16 too. People don’t like to admit it but a 16 year old is still basically a child. We don’t know what went down all we can do is be glad he was finally exonerated.
You want to imprison a 10yo for lying and not telling the truth for 6 years?
deleted by creator
Nah their parent or guardian need charges, because at 10 you need to be provided the means the accomplish anything, including crime.
If you provide a monkey a flamethrower and let it loose in a building, they aren’t charging the monkey with arson.
Yeah, but you don’t need to convict a monkey of a crime to put it in a cage.
Right they take your monkey. They should take your kid too.
I don’t have a kid, but I appreciate your opinion.
I’m sure you wouldn’t give them flamethrowers if you had any.
deleted by creator
If you look at the Wikipedia entry for “age of criminal responsibility,” quite a few countries think that children under a certain age just plain cannot be held responsible for a crime. Of course, in the US it’s different and there are some states where age does exempt from responsibility and some where it doesn’t.
Not “put her up to it”… 'allowed the behaviour"
There’s the other article about a 17 year old being killed during a welfare check so getting put down doesn’t seem to make a distinction.
For me it’s a slider, at 15 I would agree with you, but 10 I definitely think the parents should be the ones in court.
Would the monkey really be put down tho ? If it still holds the flamethrower of course, because it’s still a threat, but after the fact I don’t think so.
Thank you. Hell what a stupid 'revenge instead of rehabilitation" attitude some people have…
Children in these situations don’t need incarceration they need therapy and rehabilitation. Putting them behind bars is just a waste at best, and doesn’t in any way make the world a better place.
I think sometimes people respond to punishment. They/we don’t want the consequences of an action so we change our behavior. With that said, our prison system is terrible. A person’s punishment should be loss of freedom (only). IMO we should still treat prisoners with some dignity and they should be safe and reasonably comfortable.
I just say civilised cultures don’t imprison a child for a dumb lie. Because you said
At the very least, those are kids who need an evaluation and probably some sort of therapy to help them become reasonably well-adjusted adults. Try and correct their course early so they won’t go so far astray.
She was 16 at the time
Doesn’t matter her age when the comment says “Whatever she is just lock her up.”
Thank you. I feel like there’s a lot of mouth foam around here in the comments
10 years is way below criminal maturity. At that age I’d very much rather have a close look at everyone who interviewed her. It’s terribly easy to get kids to make false statements.
What would you rather do? Fine them six years worth of prison fees plus lost wages? How proportionate a response is appropriate?
Well, we locked an innocent man up for 6 years for doing absolutely nothing wrong, so…
Yea it wasn’t the dumb child locking him up. It was the court/the legal system