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.

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 Innocence Project website is a sobering look at what happens when there is nothing deterring false accusers from wielding that weapon.