Why isn't it suitable? You say that the 'rules change' when it's criminal, but that's only because those are the rules we've got. There's no reason that we couldn't make all trials use the civil approach.
If Sarah wants to accuse Bob of rape, she petitions a court and has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. If Bob denies it then automatically an opposite trial of false accusation runs at the same time. If Sarah has evidence that Bob raped her, perhaps the testimony of police detectives, Bob looses both cases and goes to prison. If there's not enough evidence, both sides loose. If it becomes clear that Bob definitely did not rape her, Sarah looses both cases, including the false accusation case, and goes to prison.
At the moment Bob would have to make a separate trial for defamation or whatever. I think it should be rolled into one.
In the case of murder, or treason, or grafatti of public property or whatever, it would be the state accusing. If it turns out that it was a malicious false accusation then the police or prosecutors would be liable.
While I definitely agree that false accusation should be treated far more seriously and consistently than it seems to be, I think this is going too far in the other direction. Why should a victim of crime be obliged to prove a case against their aggressor? Who pays? What if the victim doesn't have the resources or time to take someone to court?
And you need to make an exception for murder, attempted murder, disablement, etc anyway. No, the current concept of criminal justice works reasonably well, or would with consistent and serious enforcement of false accusation (and, for that matter, prosecutorial harassment).
I repeat myself over and over again but I maintain that the best thing we can do to fix the justice system is to enforce the bloody law. All the laws. Consistently. If the law is too ridiculous to enforce, revoke it. But enforce the ones we have. Discretion in enforcing the law leads to gaming the system, protected and taboo groups, corruption, and ultimately profound injustice.
> While I definitely agree that false accusation should be treated far more seriously and consistently than it seems to be, I think this is going too far in the other direction. Why should a victim of crime be obliged to prove a case against their aggressor? [emphasis added]
Wait -- that's already true. Do you think the present system relieves a plaintiff of the burden of evidence? In a rape trial, the plaintiff has to produce evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the state can do little to help (most rape cases rely on circumstantial evidence).
And "innocent until proven guilty" is a cornerstone of Western legal systems -- this discussion isn't about that, and shouldn't be.
> Discretion in enforcing the law leads to gaming the system, protected and taboo groups, corruption, and ultimately profound injustice.
Yes, and it's unconstitutional as well, therefore illegal and grounds for dismissal if it can be proven. But the suggestion being made here doesn't really address it -- both civil and criminal courts are equally likely to treat cases selectively, as do the police.
"Why should a victim of crime be obliged to prove a case against their aggressor?"
That's what I have issue with more than anything else. We don't know that they are a victim until the trial has concluded. Until then they're just claiming to be a victim. They may well be right, they may be honestly mistaken (it was dark and I mistook who he was), or they may be less honestly mistaken (I was drunk and assumed), or they may be maliciously mistaken (revenge).
Even if they have been beaten up or whatever, so it's pretty clear they didn't make it up, we should act cooly and say until we've had the trial, it's all just accusations.
Nobody should be a "victim" until there has been a trial. Innocent until proven guilty, accuser until proven victim.
> You say that the 'rules change' when it's criminal ...
Yes -- as one difference, the standard becomes "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal case, instead of "preponderance of evidence" for a civil case.
> If Sarah wants to accuse Bob of rape, she petitions a court and has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. [emphasis added]
Wait, isn't it your position that civil rules should apply to all cases? You just quoted the criminal standard of evidence.
> At the moment Bob would have to make a separate trial for defamation or whatever. I think it should be rolled into one.
But you also grant that the state might bring its own cases. Obviously a juror is going to treat a state-backed case differently -- not that this is fair, but just based on human nature.
At the moment there are two parallel systems -- in one, you can go to jail or to the gallows. In the other, a fine is the maximum punishment. Do you really want to collapse them into one, so that there's one standard of evidence, the state can bring a case, and capital punishment is among the possibilities?
> If it turns out that it was a malicious false accusation then the police or prosecutors would be liable.
Separate issue -- that idea could be present or absent no matter what system was chosen. But as it happens, it isn't -- at least, not usually, and there are exceptions. The prosecutor who pursued the Duke University LaCrosse false-accusation case was eventually punished for his misdeeds, just because his actions were so egregious.
By the way -- how many of you know the FBI statistics regarding lying about sex crimes? FBI labs reports that, of women who report sex crimes, somewhere between 20% and 40% turn out to be false:
Quote: "... even a skeptic like me must credit a DNA exclusion rate of 20 percent that remained constant over several years when conducted by FBI labs. This is especially true when 20 percent more were found to be questionable. False accusations are not rare. They are common."
> No, you said that you thought what I was proposing was similar to civil rules.
That was the position you took. You suggested that the two parties should have equal standing, both would present their side of the story and the judgment would follow from that. In other words, the civil system, not the criminal one.
Here is what you said, word for word:
"If I could design society, I would remove the dock and in all court cases have two identical sides of the room - person A (person A could be the state or the Crown) says person B did something, person B says that person A is falsely accusing them of doing something. There's no defendant and victim, just two opposing stories and a trial to establish reasonable fact." [emphasis added]
That describes the civil court system, where the sides have equal standing and the evidence standard is "preponderance of evidence". But then you quoted the criminal standard -- "beyond a reasonable doubt". So I pointed this out to you.
> Big difference, dickhead.
I recommend that you read your own words before objecting to how other people read them.
If Sarah wants to accuse Bob of rape, she petitions a court and has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. If Bob denies it then automatically an opposite trial of false accusation runs at the same time. If Sarah has evidence that Bob raped her, perhaps the testimony of police detectives, Bob looses both cases and goes to prison. If there's not enough evidence, both sides loose. If it becomes clear that Bob definitely did not rape her, Sarah looses both cases, including the false accusation case, and goes to prison.
At the moment Bob would have to make a separate trial for defamation or whatever. I think it should be rolled into one.
In the case of murder, or treason, or grafatti of public property or whatever, it would be the state accusing. If it turns out that it was a malicious false accusation then the police or prosecutors would be liable.