If a party is found not guilty of a serious felony such as rape, should the accuser later be prosecuted?

For lying and wasting police time.
Answers:
Yes and no.

It depends on the situation. I reckon if someone is found not guilty for lack of evidence then no. But if the accuse was able to prove he/she wasn't at hand (on camera in a department store at the time of the crime) then 100% yes they should be capable of press charges on the accuser.

The thing that would worry me going on for prosecuting the anytime someone is found 'not guilty' is that people might be afraid to press charges in the first place. But SOMEONE wants to pay the legal bills of someone found not guilty. I know a guy that racked up $300,000 surrounded by lawyer fees because he was wrongfully charged beside molesting some kid...turns out the kid just didn't want to get contained by trouble for something. Something isn't right there.
Hi there
The Crown Prosecution Service must be 95% sure of a "guilty" verdict formerly the case goes to Court.
The Judge and Jury must consider the guilty condemnation is made "beyond reasonable doubt". So the chances of a not guilty ruling have already been sifted out.
The key problem here is when the couple have had consensual sex next the woman alleges rape.
In these circumstances then the full weight of the ruling should be used in order to deter such appointments in the future.
Best wishes. Source(s): Professional experience.
I right to be heard yes. Yes
Only if there is proof that the claim be false. Being found "Not Guilty" does not mean the person did not do it or the claim is false. It singular means there be not enough evidence to convict.

Look at the OJ Simpson murder trial. He was found "Not Guilty" within the criminal trial. Does this mean he did not kill his wife and her friend? No. The civil covering afterward found him liable for their deaths. The "Not Guilty" verdict single means that the prosecution did not present the evidence properly (and that she be more concerned about her looks than the case itself).
Only if the accusers actions are found to be completely baseless and a rubbish of the courts time. A lot of cases get dismissed just due to insufficiency of evidence, obviously I wouldn't agree in those circumstances.
Without a doubt.

Rape is a vicious and evil crime and the tag of a rapist going to an innocent individual could have very serious consequences.

However an accuser may aversion someone, they should never make such a vile accusation.

They should be prosecuted short a doubt. Wasting Police time and the liable,slanderous accusation against a proven innocent person.
Being found not guilty does not mean that the accuser lied or that the person cleared did not truly commit the crime.
It can mean that because of a technicality or because of a lack of authentic evidence then they cannot be found guilty.

IF however it was found that the accuser bought the charges through spitefulness and were giving false evidence or just plain lying consequently YES the accuser should be prosecuted.
Only if near is reasonable belief you can prove they were lying...
most of the time someone is found not guilty of rape is because of scarcity of evidence. This doesn't mean it didn't happen just that they couldn't prove it in court.
Just because an perpetrator is found not guilty, doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime. It just ability there is insufficient evidence to convict them. If an accuser brings false accusations, yes they should be prosecuted. However, a not guilty condemnation does not necessarily mean the accuser was lying or wasting police time.
if the allegation was brought maliciously consequently yes but not if the case could just not be proven. The majority of rapes are never reported and even those which are are deeply difficult to get a conviction for s most times it is one persons word against another.
To find someone guilty of a crime, the suitcase against them must be estbalished beyond any reasonable doubt. The defence migt conceivably establish reasonable doubt so that a jury is not comfortable convicting the accused, but explicitly not the same thing as to say aloud they were innocent. British justice works on the cause that it is better 10 guilty people walk free than 1 innocent party is inncarcerated.

Against this backdrop, people will be smaller quantity likley to report crime if they will go to prison if their accusations fall short (and given the aforementioned, even though a crime has been comitted, the guilty will travel free).

Where an accusation was obviosuly unkind, however, then yes people should be sent to prison (and I believe that someone be recently in the UK for making an reproach of rape and then withdrawing it).
yes cause of the shame they have brought on the accuse


Related Questions: