As the topic says. I've been raging against sexual bullying in schools for some time and it's been pointed out to me that the victims' stories should be examined carefully as well (which is something I normally say myself, actually).

After a story of a teacher falsely accused and spending time in prison and being marked for life until the girl was proved to have lied, I recalled some other incidents, statistics, even fictional scenes in books.

It struck me for the first time ever that false accusation of rape should be a sexual offence. Firstly, it's already illegal as any false accusation, and you can even go to prison for such an act. Secondly, it involves sex and a sexual crime (i.e. the made up rape). This is still a bit weak and probably not enough grounds to justify splitting up false accusation into sexual and not sexual. However, the third argument is that a false accusation of rape makes someone into a pervert and marks him as a sexual offender, i.e. one of the lowest creatures in people's perception. It's also (at least in many cases) a tool of sexual humiliation. As if the false accuser wanted to humiliate the accused sexually. Or use the accused's sexuality to humiliate him. All in all, it becomes akin to rape or sexual coercion or at least sexual mobbing if you look at it from this perspective.

Discuss. And there's a poll.

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 30 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Should false accusation of rape be a sexual crime? (30 votes.)

Should false accusation of rape be a sexual crime? (Choose 1)
* Yes, always - 17% (5)
* Yes, but only if the motive/background of the crime is sexual - 23% (7)
* No, unless there is a very good reason (e.g. a complicated unique case justifying such an interpretation) - 33% (10)
* No, never. It's just false accusation like any other - 20% (6)
* Just give me the results - 7% (2)

Is it a good idea to put false accusers of rape on a special register? (Choose 1)
* Yeah, if you have a sex offender register, they should be there - 50% (15)
* No, they aren't generic sex offenders and don't deserve to be there - 33% (10)
* I don't know or I want to see the results only - 17% (5)

I don't feel that an accusation of rape is a sexual crime, at least not in my eyes. Yes, it is humiliating and potentially life-wrecking, but it isn't actually sexual. So I voted for 'no, unless there was a good reason'. However, because of your third point, I feel that false accusations of rape should be dealt with very harshly.

I wasn't sure enough as to my feelings on the second question, so I remained neutral.

Well, in the U.S. the crime would simply be "Filing a false police report", and it wouldn't matter that the false report dealt with a sex crime. Generally speaking I do not think that a false report should be handled as a sex crime except in extreme situations - e.g., multiple offenses, if it has been shown the accuser has done this to others in the past.

As a result, I also voted no to the second question. IMO, unless they were going to make a different database to hold the names of these people, it doesn't really make sense to place them on a sex offender list. I think there's a big difference between committing a sexual offense, and false accusing someone of the same. Both actions are very bad, but I view committing the act to be considerably worse.

Hell yes! I've heard a large number of very disturbing accounts about women exploiting the predisposition of the legal system to favor them in such cases...they don't even have to formally make an accusation...just the threat of one is enough to keep guys on their toes...

So yeah, turnabout's definitely fair play, and I'm all for it!

Heavens, yes !

— I fully agree with Faraaz here ( even if I am invoking Heavens and no Hell :p ! ).

A false accusation, or even a threat of, is serious enough to break the life of anyone !
Women must be treated with EXTREME severity in these matters.

I am not usually very strict :

— BUT Sex and Love MUST REMAIN as sweet bliss matters, NOT levers of malice ! :almostmad:

• In fact, I think that FALSE accusation of rape is near-worse than a rape, because of the duplicity and/or evil premeditations in the deed ...

[ November 05, 2006, 19:48: Message edited by: Cal Yhringlor ]

Something to remember: some false accusations are made honestly. The trauma of a rape event can sometimes lead to mis-identification on the part of the victim.

That said, if you can prove it was malicious, lock them the f*** away. :toofar: And though I can't say I approve of the female genital mutilation going on in a few parts of the Middle East, it would be interesting to adopt it (for sex offenders only) alongside castration for male sex offenders.

The list, though...again, I can't say I approve of the list in the first place. People aren't perfect in their judgements, and that kind of stigma... :bad:

I'd say conditionally to both, and the conditionally is because of this:
Some cases of false rape claims are not intentional. Either the person was actually raped, and mistook identity (I don't think anyone was including this) or the person is seriously mentally ill (some of you may have meant to include this) or the person may have been given false memories through hypnosis (there have been a few cases of this, in which case the psychiatrist should be held accountable, though not neccessarily for a sexual crime, depends on the situation here). The intentional offenders should be punished and put on a registry, but not a general 'sex offenders' registry, as this is something very different. Put them on a 'false accusers' registry, with the number of false accusations (ones that can be proven false) recorded. Just because a girl once made a false claim of rape doesn't mean she can't actually be raped, but if she's made a habit if it, I'd want the standards of evidence to be higher.

It is filing a false report and perjury, which are already criminal offences. The sentence should reflect the damage and risk that has been perpetrated, and after the criminal trial, there's civil matters to consider. They should face the same punishment and stigma that they sought to inflict upon thier victim.

I know two people who've been falsely accsed, and the accuser got away with it in both cases.

The charge is not a sex crime, but should bve punished to the fuillest extent of the law.

What I'm afraid of is that this thread will go somewhere that will imply the false accusations of rape and sexual assault will somehow overshadow rape and sexual assualt themselves.

Of course, false accusation does happen, and although those who receive false accusations get a hard time from others, even after they're exonerated, those who are raped still receive stigmatization. (One writer argued that when a white woman is raped, it's a terrible violation of purity; when a black woman raped, she is immediately at fault for leading the rapist on like some kind of whore. Going on that, men who are raped by men likely receive a good deal of stigmatization for "not being able to put up a fight" or something equally bizarre.)

Just keep in mind that getting a false accusation of rape is bad, but you're far less likely to, for example, have a case of post-traumatic stress disorder than if you were raped yourself.

EDIT: another thing to keep mind -- I'd assume many filing a false rape charge probably are not doing so out of petty amusement or spite. They're doing it because it's a way to get back at (for example) white men or an abusive stepbrother. Just because someone files a rape doesn't mean she hasn't been raped on a separate occasion.

@Felinoid, NOG: When a false accusation is made without malicious intent, it's not a crime. You don't go to prison for filing an objectively false rape report out of misidentification. Right? I'm not talking about harsher punishment here. Just the identification: is it a sex crime or is it not.

And just as a remainder: people with real mental issues don't go to prison, either. ;) Same as we talk about the crime of homicide: you don't go to prison because you've objectively killed someone but because you can be blamed for it. Mentally ill people sometimes can't be blamed for their actions.

@Gnarff:

It is filing a false report and perjury, which are already criminal offences.Aha. Here we have a separate crime type for false accusation, and for false witness and perjury.

@Oaz:

EDIT: another thing to keep mind -- I'd assume many filing a false rape charge probably are not doing so out of petty amusement or spite. They're doing it because it's a way to get back at (for example) white men or an abusive stepbrother. Just because someone files a rape doesn't mean she hasn't been raped on a separate occasion.I think someone who has undergone real rape should be less inclined to make such a false accusation, actually. I think it's just people who don't really have an idea what they are talking about.

Perhaps one more thing to explain:

When a charge falls and the accused is acquitted, it doesn't automatically mean the accusation is false. If you accuse someone of false accusation, the person has the benefit of doubt and presumption of innocenece works in his favour, so you have to prove the accusation was male fide false, i.e. knowing, willing, not in error, not under force, not because of mental problems etc etc. Filing a false report, pressing a false charge, false accusation... whatever you call it in a particular legal system, it's not an automatic backleash making the supposed victim go to prison if the supposed offender is acquitted.

It is filing a false report and perjury, which are already criminal offences.Only if it was done knowingly, and you can have one without the other. You can only commit perjury when you're under oath, and you aren't placed under oath when you file a police report.

Aha. Here we have a separate crime type for false accusation, and for false witness and perjury. Gnarff pretty much explained it. I do not think we have a charge for false accusation or false witness. What we do have is filing a false police report (only if done knowingly). Perjury occurs when you make a false accusation or give fasle testimony while under oath. If you do something like that when you aren't under oath, it's slander. Out of curiosity, how are those laws applied in Poland?

When a charge falls and the accused is acquitted, it doesn't automatically mean the accusation is false. Exactly. The import thing to stress here is you can only be charged with perjury or filing a false police report if you do it knowingly. If you actually are raped, accuse someone of the rape, and actually believe that the person you are accusing committed the crime, it's not perjury. In such a case, you aren't lying - you may be wrong - but you are not intentionally accusing someone who you know to be innocent. There are certainly times when a crime is definitely committed, but the person accused is not found to be guilty. Just because you cannot find a particular person guilty doesn't mean that the crime never occured.

Holy bananas Batman!

I essentially agree with Gnarf! Oooooh.

It is not really a sex crime as such, but knowingly and intentionally falsly accusing someone of Rape or other sexual offences should carry the same term as the crime itself.

It has to be proven to be intentional, clearly. Mistakenly accusing one person when it was another is not in this category. Accusing someone of rape when perhaps they can't remember what happened, but their husband / boyfriend is going mad because they didn't come home after a party on the other hand.....

If you do something like that when you aren't under oath, it's slander. Out of curiosity, how are those laws applied in Poland?If the court catches someone lying, it's under the obligation to inform the appropriate prosecutor and there's typically one present, anyway. The prosecution is public, which means the prosecutor can act on his own too. There's a range of articles of the penal code aimed against such offences.

Accusation is separate from others; it's not understood as a formal activity but more as accusing someone before the law enforcement or the court. This is fine, probation/supervision (it's called "limitation liberty" and considered to be between freedom and prison - "deprivation of liberty", similar to normal probation) or up to two years of prison. This is regardless of warnings and being informed of one's rights because we aren't talking about formal testimony. In fact, perjury is a worse crime than a merely factual false accusation without perjury before the police or public prosecutor. Of course, if you accuse someone falsely and then lie under oath, make up evidence etc, you answer for that additionally.

False witness under oath, be it before court or administrative authorities or any other institution where you make oaths, is only prison and up to three years. This means if you don't qualify for suspending, you go behind the bars. You need to have been warned before testifying and informed of your rights if you can refuse to testify e.g. because of close blood relation. The penalty can be reduced or even abstained from if the facts are marginal or if it's recanted willingly and truth is told. Declarations with a criminal penalty provision (similar to your "under the penalty of perjury" clause) also fall here.

Falsificating evidence and giving false leads to law enforcement specifically against a person is up to 3 years. Forgery penalties may apply in addition to this, if we're talking about official documents.

Hiding evidence of the accused's innocence is fine, limited liberty or prison up to two years unless done out of fear of criminal responsibility (e.g. if you or your close relative were to be accused instead).


As for defamation (we don't have the slander/libel division, but we pay attention to the difference between defamation and insult), everything is court practice and there isn't that much in the code. You can answer even for giving out true but hurtful information against private persons, such as writing an anonymous letter to a husband and telling him his wife was a prostitute. The idea is that if your goal is to destroy the good name of the person, you will pay. Otherwise it depends. Public persons have less protection, especially from journalists. IMHO they should cut down on prosecuting people for telling the truth, even out of spite.

Exactly. The import thing to stress here is you can only be charged with perjury or filing a false police report if you do it knowingly. If you actually are raped, accuse someone of the rape, and actually believe that the person you are accusing committed the crime, it's not perjury. In such a case, you aren't lying - you may be wrong - but you are not intentionally accusing someone who you know to be innocent. There are certainly times when a crime is definitely committed, but the person accused is not found to be guilty. Just because you cannot find a particular person guilty doesn't mean that the crime never occured.You don't even lie if you speak bona fide according to your knowledge. I obviously wasn't talking about unintentionally false accusations; those people, even if tried for false accusation, would be acquitted.

@Viking:

Mistakenly accusing one person when it was another is not in this category.Yeah, but I'd rather people were more careful if they don't really remember. They should state their doubts clearly and allow the court to evaluate the matter in that light. A mistaken accusation - without malice but with negligence, could be a civil tort, however, providing there's enough negligence, which is not very likely (we aren't talking about someone who can't figure out who stole his lawn-mower, we're talking about rape, after all). I don't think there should be any public penalty (prison, fine etc) here, at all. If only out of compassion to a confused victim of really ugly circumstances.

Accusing someone of rape when perhaps they can't remember what happened, but their husband / boyfriend is going mad because they didn't come home after a party on the other hand.....I suppose some people would be inclined to let such people get away with some scolding, but that's an offence against the law enforcement (bugging the cops without need and making them run around like fools searching for tracks) even more than against the random person picked. Intentional accusers should get an extra for the extra malice, but the infinitely stupid people who make up stories to cover up their idiocies are just asking for a slap. And they should get it.

Falsificating evidence and giving false leads to law enforcement specifically against a person is up to 3 years. Forgery penalties may apply in addition to this, if we're talking about official documents. Oh, that's definitely illegal here too. I don't know what the penalty is, or what the official charge would be, but at the very least you're looking at forgery for the former and interfering with an official investigation in the latter.

Yeah, but I'd rather people were more careful if they don't really remember. They should state their doubts clearly and allow the court to evaluate the matter in that light. A mistaken accusation - without malice but with negligence, could be a civil tort, however, providing there's enough negligence, which is not very likely (we aren't talking about someone who can't figure out who stole his lawn-mower, we're talking about rape, after all). I don't think there should be any public penalty (prison, fine etc) here, at all. If only out of compassion to a confused victim of really ugly circumstances. Well, that's understandable. If a woman is raped, and the police tell her they have a suspect, if the guy looks anything like the guy she thinked raped her, she'll probably say that it is the guy. She herself realizes that she went through a traumatic experience, and if the cops think they have the right guy, she probably thinks they have the right guy too. It may even get to the point where even if it doesn't fit her exact recollection, that she will convince herself that he's the guy.

A crime yes, but not a sexual crime.

First off, I think we all know by now that we're talking about those that intentionally accuse someone they know to be innocent. I was just pointing out the differences to make sure.

As for the crime and penalties of it, sexual offenses, like rape, pedophilia, etc. carry a unique stigma with them. Most people would be more wary of having a convicted rapist or pedophile living on their block then a conviced murderer. This is reflected by things like sexual offender databases. This puts false accusations of such a crime much higher than false accusations of other crimes. If person A says person B stole $100 from her, or even mugged her, but the evidence says otherwise, the case is forgotten in the public eye, even in the minds of the close friends of A and B (or at least B). If, on the other hand, person A says she was raped by person B but the case is thrown out, even if the evidence is overpoweringly in the favor of person B, there is still a significant level of stigma associated with person B. Lets not even consider if person B is falsly convicted and it is later overturned. For this reason I say there should be a seperate criminal offense associated with false allegations of sexual crimes.

As for the punishment and classification, this is almost as much of a sexual crime as the rape is. The only difference is the actual act of penetration. In both cases, the point is generally not to have sex with the person (obvious in false accusations, but usually true in rapes, too), but to humiliate, discredit, and break down the target, to hold power over them, generally in a sexual sense. It also has impacts on the targets future sexual relations. Even if person B's conviction was overturned, that stigma of 'rapist' will likely stick with him for a long time, which will have a significant impact on his love life. For this reason I would classify the false accusation of sexual crimes as a sex crime itself (but with a seperate database as I said). The actual offense, however, is nowhere's near as bad as actual rape, so I'd say the punishment shouldn't be as bad. Combine that with my feelings that actual rape should be treated much worse than it is today and you get the idea of how I feel the false accusations should be punished.

I agree with NOG. :eek: And for basically the same reasons he stated. I consider a false accusation to be below actual rape, and thus, at the very least, they need to be on a seperate database. However, I would like to clarify one point:

Most people would be more wary of having a convicted rapist or pedophile living on their block then a conviced murderer. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's a realistic comparison. It should also be pointed out that if you kill someone in cold blood, as in first degree murder, you're likely never getting out of prison. I don't think the anyone would feel more comfortable with a murderer instead of a rapist living next door, but the thing is, a rapist or pedophile can reasonably be expected to get out of prison at some point, whereas a murderer isn't. If you intentionally kill someone, it's either 1st or 2nd degree murder. While the punishment is variable from one state to the next, the minimum sentence you're going to get is life with the chance of parole in 25 years.

Aldeth, NOG, aren't indecent exposers on the same registry as rapists and the like where you live? Like all sex offenders lumped together? I think malicious false accusation of rape is more serious than indecent exposure, although I'd rather not compare it with actual molestation (i.e. real thing but below rape).

I don't think they are, although I admit that I am unsure. I think the sex offender registry is limited to felony level crimes, and I do not believe indecent exposure qualifies as such.

I see. I don't know if it's federal or state-based, but some time ago we discussed the case of some woman being on the sex offender registry for topless sunbathing.

I don't know if they are or not, but the thing to consider is not the severity of the crime, but the psychology behind it. Things like indecent exposure are often early steps to preditory behavior, so the offenders get stuck on the list because of where they're likely to go. False accusations of rape are based on a totally diffent psychology, and the risk of repetition is not known to me, so it really changes things.

I think false accusations are a sign of blurred distinction between truth and falsehood, so the risk should be somewhat high, but I'm not an expert here.

Things like indecent exposure are often early steps to preditory behavior, so the offenders get stuck on the list because of where they're likely to go.Actually, they are usually the first step to joining a fraternity. I think it's a bit over-kill to list some kid on a sex crime registry just for streaking at a frat party.

[ November 03, 2006, 05:59: Message edited by: Drew ]

i thnk that in this situation, there is no black and white, every crime has to be looked at individually... depending on the false accusers motive then it could be a sexual crime

No, unless a particularly good reason (and I can't think of one.)

Yes, it has the potential to help in instances of serial liars and may be able to help save some reputations. (i.e. knowing the accuser had a history of claiming rape might mean the case was kept quiet rather than blazened across the media). However, the case MUST still be treated as a proper investigation and not ignored because of the accusers history.

Here (http://www.thecomet.net/search/story.aspx?brand=CMTOnline&category=News&itemid=WEED23%20Oct%202006%2012:45:11:177&tBrand=CMTOnline&tCategory=search) is a rather disturbing local case in point.

Examination always needs to be carried out, sure. It's just sometimes it's words vs words and they rely heavily on people's credibility. False accusers should take a credibility hit, but of course not to such a point as to make false accusers easy targets of actual rape ("Hey, your honour, you know she's already lied once!").

What I'm afraid of is that this thread will go somewhere that will imply the false accusations of rape and sexual assault will somehow overshadow rape and sexual assualt themselves.That is important to remember that rape is a traumatic event. That is not up for debate. This thread assumes that the accusations were false. Real rape is not what we're talking.

Here we have a separate crime type for false accusation, and for false witness and perjury.Basically, the two charges differ only on how far the false accusation is taken. Laying the boots to someone in a fight is Assault. If he dies, it's Manslaughter. Basically how far the act goes determined the charge.

I essentially agree with Gnarf! Oooooh.Why so surprised? When we have an agreed upon set of assumptions, it's not always hard to reach the same conclusions...

As for the crime and penalties of it, sexual offenses, like rape, pedophilia, etc. carry a unique stigma with them.Agreed. That's why I would suggest a harsher penalty upon such accusers, but the charge is the same. The only difference is in the damage done.

Actually, they are usually the first step to joining a fraternity. I think it's a bit over-kill to list some kid on a sex crime registry just for streaking at a frat party.Now I'm scared. I agree with Drew!

But I wouldn't argue if a streaker trying to join a Fraternity got off on lesser charges. Usually he will be pissed out of his gourd, so drunk and stupid--er disorderly would be appropriate. This also assumes that some precautions are taken (like middle of the night when kids are asleep). If they streak an area frequented by children when they are likely to be there, then the gloves are off...

False accusers should take a credibility hit, but of course not to such a point as to make false accusers easy targets of actual rape ("Hey, your honour, you know she's already lied once!").You know defence lawyers will try that anyway...

You know defence lawyers will try that anyway...They've recently try that in a classroom gang-rape attempt on a 14 year old girl by her classmates case. They said it was crude advances. The deed was forcible public stripping and digital penetration apart from groping and verbal violence. The broken girl committed suicide after coming back to her house and locking herself in her room. The boys' families and lawyers said they shouldn't even be in the courtroom. Such a mockery of justice should get a lawyer disbarred in my opinion. The accused can say such things in his position, detestable as they sound, but a defence lawyer is hardly just doing his job when he sinks that low. Do I need to add they also tried to blame the girl for the whole event?

But I wouldn't argue if a streaker trying to join a Fraternity got off on lesser charges. Usually he will be pissed out of his gourd, so drunk and stupid--er disorderly would be appropriate. This also assumes that some precautions are taken (like middle of the night when kids are asleep). If they streak an area frequented by children when they are likely to be there, then the gloves are off...A wish to join an organisation is no justification for breaking the law. It's also quite apparent to me that an organisation endorsing, heck, requiring of its members a public violation of the law, should be disbanded by the court.

Streakers come in two categories: pervs and kids. Both need professional help apart from the orderly slap on the wrists for putting their sick urges or attention craving above the law of the land.

Now, what about people who don't strip bare in public but instead make up rape or molestation stories? Some will get off on the idea, some will try to deride despised superiors, some will be exacting revenge for romantic failures... all in all, this actually seems to come close to the two kinds of streakers: either pervs or kids, both pressed by urges and neither totally excusable.

Streakers come in two categories: pervs and kids. Both need professional help apart from the orderly slap on the wrists for putting their sick urges or attention craving above the law of the land.
Pervs or kids? Streaking?

Somewhat childish, certainly, attention seeking, sure, very rarely perverted imo. Also mostly conducted by young adults 18-30 at a guess. Running out on a football pitch in front of say 40,000 people and TV cameras is not likely to give them much of a sexual rush, though an adrenaline rush is perhaps a different matter.

By the way, nudity is not perverted. Streaking and exposing yourself are two completely different things.

Exhibitionism is a perversion and for streaking, at least some measure of it is required. The more exhibitionism influences the streaker's motivation, the more he falls into the perverted category, rather than kids. The difference is that kids need to grow up and pervs need to be medicated.

Streaking and exposing yourself are not two different things because both come down to the offender baring himself or appearing naked in public. Doing it to join a stupid frat is no better than getting off on it the sexual way. Or not much. Let's not be too easy on disorderly idiots. There's way too much tolerance and then people learn such things about their children, parents, spouses, whomever, years after when they are mere embarrassment. Or a tell tale for those who never grow up. Personally, I'd rather not associate with either. And I don't have a nudity phobia, I just consider the act of public stripping to be rolling eyes stupid. And perverted, yeah. Some form of exhibitionism, always (unless we're talking about five year olds who consider clothing constrict), if not always strictly sexual.

It's actually a bit the same with false accusers who succumb to their hungry imagination, I guess. To have a tell tale, and no tell tale is being better than one of harships endured, they will exaggerate real events theoretically into another perspective, but practically into a totally different thing.

But here we have more categories. Apart from kids who confabulate and pervs who get off on it, there are also the malicious intrigue weavers or avengers (i.e. those to whom just because in their mind the accused deserves N years it doesn't matter what charge is used and if it's real). As not all perpetrators of real sexual crimes do it out of pronounced, decisive sexual motives (i.e. other than the subconscious perversions that might lead even a mala fide cold-blooded false accuser), I suppose people who accuse others falsely of sexual crimes could probably fit into the same category, as generally people exhibiting disorderly, illegal behaviour in the sexual area.

Another idea that I have is that those false accusers who have such big mental/psychological issues that they don't even end up in prison but in a psychward for some time, should probably be registered somehow also. I doubt anyone would want to marry a person with a history of rape accusations or hire a teacher with a history of accusing colleagues of molesting students (not like a male only school needs a female teacher with one or two documented cases of false rape accusation). It could be helpful in moving students to more fitting schools as well. I don't really want to stigmatise the whole lot and call them freaks as much as I have a big problem with the idea that all too often meting out a fine or even a prison term, or compulsory treatment for a fixed period of time, is enough. And that if they reoffend the story begins from scratch.

[ November 06, 2006, 17:12: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Relevant Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/6142700.stm)

Spotted this on the news. 6 months in a young offenders institute for a false claim of rape.

She's 18 now, she's an adult. She should have had a couple years in Jail to think about what she did. Fortunately, the guy only served 6 weeks before being cleared...

Still, that sucks. Granted six weeks is not an extended period of time, but I certainly wouldn't want to spend 6 weeks in prison, especially since sex crimes are usually incarcerated in high security prisons. I wonder how many times *he* was raped in that 6 week period?

I have not read the whole thread, but there is a danger that rapists could threaten to sue their victim for 'false' accusation of rape. Many news reports state that most victims of rape don't report their attacks for fear of being labeled a liar amongst other things.

The issue with a suit is usually moot. The rapist would have to prove that the accuser either acted with blatant knowledge that she was lying (i.e. PROVE that he didn't rape her and she knew it) or with no concern for the truth (which would be pretty impossible on this issue). Mearly not being able to prove he did rape her wouldn't get him anything in a civil case.

That's quite all right, actually. It's often very difficult to decide if the supposed rapist did it or not, so it's only normal that it's only blatant lies where a false accusation can be proven easily.

As an example, if they agree there was sex but she claims rape and he says it was consensual, their lawyers fight over the definition of consent or if she did or not indicate it/lack of it, then it's only logical that he won't be able to prove intentional false accusation on her part if he gets acquitted.

But if she makes up a story to cover up coming home late, losing virginity, putting out with the guy in question, then it's a different thing.

Even if she wakes up with an ugly hangover and an ugly guy in her bed and claims rape without thinking too much, I suppose it's still not enough. Or maybe... well, that's surely being negligent and negligently bothering the cops and prosecutor and court and all. I would leave hypocrites alone (except a fine or something for bothering the cops and court without need) and just focus on people who really know they are making it up.