Summary
Crystal Mangum, who accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, admitted for the first time on a podcast that her claims were fabricated.
She said she lied for validation and apologized to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, acknowledging they “didn’t deserve” the accusations.
The case, which drew national attention, collapsed after evidence disproved her story, leading to the disbarment of Durham DA Mike Nifong for misconduct.
Mangum is currently in prison for a 2011 murder conviction.
No harm, no foul, right? It’s not like the accusations by themselves did any damage to the players’ mental health, social lives or had any effect on their education. Those reports of vandalism to Duke property and death threats to staff must’ve been fabricated too.
As much as I’d like the justice of having her prison sentence extended by the length of time each player would have been facing, I don’t think it’s a good idea in general. Wouldn’t want to discourage survivors of rape from coming forward with legitimate accusations due to fear of repercussions if the evidence is not sufficient to convict their attacker. Lots of things can go wrong between the crime scene and court room, guilty parties don’t always end up where they belong.
I can’t believe how often I still see this sentiment.
This does not make any sense. Do not equate ‘the accused wasn’t convicted’ with ‘we have proof the accusation was a deliberate lie’, the latter absolutely does not automatically follow from the former.
A separate trial would need to occur to convict the false accuser–the lack of a conviction in the accused’s trial, in and of itself, would obviously (I’d think) not be sufficient to levy any sort of punishment on the accuser.
The only people a hypothetical measure like this would be discouraging are the false accusers. No actual victim, nor even anyone whose accusation is false for reasons other than them lying (e.g. mistaken identity) would be affected at all.
It’s important to take this weapon away from those people malicious enough to lie about something like this. A much more severe punishment for being proven to have tried to ruin someone’s life this way is a good step in that direction, I think. No one should have the power to ruin someone’s life with a single lie.
The Innocent Project website is a sobering look at what happens when there is nothing deterring false accusers from wielding that weapon.
I don’t equate the lack of conviction for the attacker with a separate conviction for false reporting by the accuser but it’d be a valid concern on top of the many other reasons someone might choose to stay silent. Many attackers may be content to escape with a “not guilty” ruling if the prosecution isn’t able to prove their case but some are certain to try and hit back through the legal system even when they know the truth of the matter. Not sure I’d roll the dice on a true (but hard to prove) claim if it opened me up to further victimization.
No, it would not be a valid concern. If your accusation is not a lie, you’d be fine.
If there is zero evidence of deliberate lying, how do you expect such an attempt to ever go anywhere, much less reach a courtroom?
The only way I could see such a thing even getting off the ground immediately after trial is if, during that trial, direct evidence of lying came to light (e.g. video recording of the event in question showing an obviously-consensual sex act, or no sex act at all, or evidence of the accuser admitting the accusation to be a lie, etc.).
The vast majority of accused would not be in any position to ‘retaliate’ this way, and the few who are, only are because they’re justified in doing so.
I’d recommend looking up The Innocence Project to see examples of cases where false accusations result in convictions but you’re already familiar with their work.
Yeah, it’s a great idea. Because innocent people are never convicted in our justice system.
Because people never abuse the legal system with bogus lawsuits.
Because police aren’t more likely to be abusers themselves and therefore more likely to take the side of another abuser against a victim.
Because someone who is willing to rape someone isn’t ever likely to try to exert more power over them.
Because laws are always applied evenly and justly across all races, sexes, social classes, identities.
Because sexual assault victims feel totally empowered by our legal system and society as long as they’re telling the truth.
Oh wait, none of those things are true.
So no, it’s not a great idea. Not until we fix a fuck ton of other problems in our society and justice system.
Libel, slander, and perjury are already illegal. Let’s use existing laws rather than introducing something new that can make it even harder for real victims.
It’s amazing how some people hate men so much that they’ll go to bat harder for hypothetical women than actual men, who have been falsely accused.
Pitiful.