Should false accusations of rape carry tougher sentences?

The Big Smoke

Shocked at this.

Outrage: Woman whose monstrous rape lie sent an innocent young man to prison for four years is sentenced to two months behind bars, to be served on weekends


Elizabeth Paige Coast, the woman who sent a random young man from her past to prison for four years for a supposed rape that never happened (she made it up as a way to explain to her parents why she was visiting pornographic websites), was sentenced this afternoon to serve just two months behind bars, on weekends only. She will also have to pay Mr. Montgomery $90,000 in restitution for the years he spent in prison. See here, here and here.

The story of Johnathon Montgomery's ordeal not only is heart-breaking, it's a cautionary tale about how an innocent young man can be destroyed with no evidence beyond the very shaky say-so of his false rape accuser. If it can happen to Johnathon, it can happen to any young man.

Today's sentence worked an intolerable injustice to Johnathon and the Montgomery family. Although Hampton Circuit Court Judge Bonnie L. Jones said she was deeply disturbed by the case, and added that "this goes to the very heart of our judicial system," it is impossible to see how the actual sentence imposed fit the crime, given that the guilty person was given two months (weekends only) jail time for a crime that sent an innocent man to prison for four years. The prosecutor, Hopewell Commonwealth's Attorney Richard K. Newman, wanted Coast to serve the same amount of time behind bars that Johnathon served, but the court opted to give Coast a slap on the wrist instead. According to one news report: "Just prior to sentencing Coast, Jones asked, 'What do I do? Is it an eye for an eye, or is there room for compassion?'"

It is well to note that there was no room for "compassion" in sentencing Mr. Montgomery when he was convicted on the flimsiest of evidence for a crime that never happened. It is unfathomable how the horrors of spending years in prison on a false rape claim could be lost on the judge. Those are horrors that Ms. Coast will be spared on her weekend sojourns to the local lock-up.

According to a news report, "Coast cried repeatedly during her sentencing hearing; her lawyer tried to portray her as a naive, then 17-year-old, who feared her parents." (So much for accepting responsibility for her actions.) "Coast says she never thought the lie would hurt Montgomery, and only said it was him because he had moved out of the area." (In fact, Coast sat silent after Johnathon was charged, and she allowed him to twist in a false rape hell for four years. It is one thing to make a split-second stupid decision, and quite another to refuse to correct it after it's apparent that an innocent person is going to suffer because of it, much less suffer for four years because of it.)

The sentence today also does no favors for rape victims because it undermines the public's confidence in the way rape claims are handled. Jurors have no hesitation in holding young men accountable for rape when the evidence is clear. But when the system botches it -- when false accusers and their families, police, prosecutors, and courts allow innocent young men to be convicted for rapes they didn't commit -- it has a chilling effect on juries deciding rape cases. It underscores the uncertainty inherent in charges based on he said/she said facts.

In this case, the justice system needed to send a clear and unmistakable message that such mistakes are not tolerated, that they are not "business as usual." It needed to manifest its outrage, belated though it may be, by punishing the false accuser appropriately. It didn't do that. Now, the next jury called upon to decide a rape case will know that, when it comes to this particular crime, the system tolerates injustice to innocent young men -- and jurors will be all the more wary about convicting even young men who deserve it. If we want to treat rape as a serious crime, we can't tolerate false rape claims.

Punishing Coast in a serious way would not have deterred rape victims from coming forward, and it would not deter recantations by other false accusers. We've dealt with both arguments many times. See here.

All persons of good will need to be outraged about this sentence. Judge Bonnie L. Jones not only has denied Johnathon Montgomery justice, she's done a disservice to the community of the wrongly accused, and to rape victims

Source

Not only has this woman been given a ridiculously light sentence for this, but the lad has lost FOUR years of his life. Which begs the question, should false accusations of rape, assaults etc carry heftier sentences?

kaimera

Story a while back where the girl got 2 years I think for false accusations.

2 months is a joke

desertcircus

"Here's an incredibly rare story from a jurisdiction several thousand miles away. We've left out pretty much everything to do with context and made no effort whatsoever to consider why someone would be so scared of their own parents' reaction as to make a false rape accusation. We're also doing nothing to explain how this new sentencing rule might work, and damned if we're going to spend a moment's thought wondering if she would have come forward if she was guaranteed a four-year sentence. We're not even going to begin to think about the fact that perjury is a completely different crime to rape, and don't you dare wonder why we decided to focus on this rather than on horrifically low reporting and conviction rates for rape. What's that? You're worried that a focus on stories like this rather than the reality of sexual assault cases will prejudice public opinion and actively damage our chances of making a better society? Hush hush, there's a story to sell."

The Big Smoke

It sends a seriously bad message that people can falsely accuse others without fear of a tough sentence.

Femme_Fatale

Yes, sentences should be longer IMO, but not equal to the sentence a rapist gets, as is sometimes suggested. She didn't rape anyone.

The Big Smoke

desertcircus wrote: »

"Here's an incredibly rare story from a jurisdiction several thousand miles away. We've left out pretty much everything to do with context and made no effort whatsoever to consider why someone would be so scared of their own parents' reaction as to make a false rape accusation. We're also doing nothing to explain how this new sentencing rule might work, and damned if we're going to spend a moment's thought wondering if she would have come forward if she was guaranteed a four-year sentence. We're not even going to begin to think about the fact that perjury is a completely different crime to rape, and don't you dare wonder why we decided to focus on this rather than on horrifically low reporting and conviction rates for rape. What's that? You're worried that a focus on stories like this rather than the reality of sexual assault cases will prejudice public opinion and actively damage our chances of making a better society? Hush hush, there's a story to sell."

"Here's an idea, lets pollute the thread with various whataboutery taking away from what is a fairly serious subject."

Seaneh

There are two sides to this coin.

The women who make false claims against a man for what reason.

And

The women who are attacked, report the attack, the police can't find enough evidence and the guy gets away with it.


Making laws about something like this mandatory will mean that less people will report genuine attacks and more scumbags will get away with it. There should be nothing that puts women in fair of being prosecuted because they were attacked and the scumbag got away with it.

Judges should be allowed to work on a case by case basis.

The Big Smoke

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes, sentences should be longer IMO, but not equal to the sentence a rapist gets, as is sometimes suggested. She didn't rape anyone.

The man spent 4 years in prison, she should get equal that. HE didn't rape anyone.

Check_Yourself

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes, sentences should be longer IMO, but not equal to the sentence a rapist gets, as is sometimes suggested. She didn't rape anyone.

She raped his reputation!

Herrick

Frankly anyone found to have made a false rape claim where a sentence was imposed originally, should be given the same length of time as the falsely accused imo.

Then say a standard 1-2 years for a false claim discovered before a sentence is passed on the wrongly accused. E.g. The guards arrest a guy after a girl cries rape but discover after a few hours, days, etc it's all lies.

anncoates

Just make the person that made the false allegation do the maximum sentence for the crime and put them on the sex offenders register.

Frosty McSnowballs

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes, sentences should be longer IMO, but not equal to the sentence a rapist gets, as is sometimes suggested. She didn't rape anyone.

Yeah but neither did he.

desertcircus

The Big Smoke wrote: »

"Here's an idea, lets pollute the thread with various whataboutery taking away from what is a fairly serious subject."

Whataboutery? This is a single story that offers zero data on how prevalent the issue is, what the background to the case is, whether such a policy is workable, whether such a policy might cause more problems than it creates or whether the policy would even manage to reduce incidences of wrongful imprisonment and yet manages to make a clear and unambiguous recommendation. It's bad advocacy, bad journalism and bad logic. How many cases of this a year are happening? What's making people do it? Will this stop them? Will this dissuade them from subsequently admitting the claim was false? It's horrific politics to come down on any side without making the slightest effort to engage with a single one of those questions, and that's before we get to the fact that set against all this is a legal system that's disastrously bad at prosecuting rapists.

SureYWouldntYa

For ones like this hell yeah, but rape is a traumatic experience, and sometimes its a genuine case of mistaken identity, there's no one solution for all cases when it comes to this

GalwayGuy2

We're not even going to begin to think about the fact that perjury is a completely different crime to rape

Yes, sentences should be longer IMO, but not equal to the sentence a rapist gets, as is sometimes suggested. She didn't rape anyone.

People who go into prison on sexual offense related charges are raped and abused by both the inmates and the guards while they are in there.

So, yes, in a lot of ways a false accusation is as bad as rape.

Handsome Bob

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes, sentences should be longer IMO, but not equal to the sentence a rapist gets, as is sometimes suggested. She didn't rape anyone.

Taking 4 years away from someone's life, and all but destroying someone's hopes and prospects in the future, definitely deserves a serious sentence more akin to what a rapist would get.

But I would say this; if it was me, I'd be far more interested in pursuing the farcical system that allowed me to be falsely imprisoned for 4 years.

Seaneh

Seaneh wrote: »

There are two sides to this coin.

The women who make false claims against a man for what reason.

And

The women who are attacked, report the attack, the police can't find enough evidence and the guy gets away with it.


Making laws about something like this mandatory will mean that less people will report genuine attacks and more scumbags will get away with it. There should be nothing that puts women in fair of being prosecuted because they were attacked and the scumbag got away with it.

Judges should be allowed to work on a case by case basis.

That's the problem indeed.
Far too many people yell about how the woman was making things up or lying when a guy is found not guilty, but that doesn't mean she was lying, it means there wasn't the evidence.
Rape report stats are low enough already and even lower going to trial because it's so traumatic, so a balance needs to be struck here

The Big Smoke

desertcircus wrote: »

Whataboutery? This is a single story that offers zero data on how prevalent the issue is, what the background to the case is, whether such a policy is workable, whether such a policy might cause more problems than it creates or whether the policy would even manage to reduce incidences of wrongful imprisonment and yet manages to make a clear and unambiguous recommendation. It's bad advocacy, bad journalism and bad logic. How many cases of this a year are happening? What's making people do it? Will this stop them? Will this dissuade them from subsequently admitting the claim was false? It's horrific politics to come down on any side without making the slightest effort to engage with a single one of those questions, and that's before we get to the fact that set against all this is a legal system that's disastrously bad at prosecuting rapists.

So to sum up.

1. It isn't happening enough so lets keep a lid on reporting it until it becomes a problem

2. Rapists don't get punished but lets make sure the innocent are.

3. Whataboutery and some ****e regarding politics.

It's this simple, this is a thread about a man who was falsly accused of rape. This man has lost his free will for 4 years and can never get it back. For the rest of his life he will have to live with the "theres no smoke without fire" accusations". She gets jail on a weekend and 90,000 to give to her victim.

To deter false accusations, impose tougher sentences for the accusers. It really is that simple. This will not impact on a rape victim coming forward, it will not somehow make tough sentences for rape disappear. It will simply reduce the level of false accusations.

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

That's the problem indeed.
Far too many people yell about how the woman was making things up or lying when a guy is found not guilty, but that doesn't mean she was lying, it means there wasn't the evidence.
Rape report stats are low enough already and even lower going to trial because it's so traumatic, so a balance needs to be struck here

Quoted because it's worth reiterating.

Putting people who've been raped in fear of prison on top of the trauma of the assault will just give would-be rapists another weapon to hurt them with.

Everything has to be judged on it's individual merits.

The Big Smoke

Candie wrote: »

Quoted because it's worth reiterating.

Putting people who've been raped in fear of prison on top of the trauma of the assault will just give would-be rapists another weapon to hurt them with.

Everything has to be judged on it's individual merits.

bluewolf wrote: »

That's the problem indeed.
Far too many people yell about how the woman was making things up or lying when a guy is found not guilty, but that doesn't mean she was lying, it means there wasn't the evidence.
Rape report stats are low enough already and even lower going to trial because it's so traumatic, so a balance needs to be struck here

So you don't think false accusations of rape should carry tougher sentences?

If a false claim is made and proven to be false there should be severe punishment.

Handsome Bob

bluewolf wrote: »

That's the problem indeed.
Far too many people yell about how the woman was making things up or lying when a guy is found not guilty, but that doesn't mean she was lying, it means there wasn't the evidence.
Rape report stats are low enough already and even lower going to trial because it's so traumatic, so a balance needs to be struck here

You're right, there is a grey area. But you'd only be pursuing someone who actually admitted to making a false allegation.

The Big Smoke

Handsome Bob wrote: »

You're right, there is a grey area. But you'd only be pursuing someone who actually admitted to making a false allegation.

Exactly, some scary stuff on this thread. I don't know what rape report statistics have to do with the question. It seems like deflecting.

Lux23

How do you prove a false accusation though? What if it was a rape but there wasn't enough proof?

tritium

bluewolf wrote: »

That's the problem indeed.
Far too many people yell about how the woman was making things up or lying when a guy is found not guilty, but that doesn't mean she was lying, it means there wasn't the evidence.

Granted, but we have an evidence based judicial system, with the presumption of innocence. There's a tendency (not you) to argue that "the rate of conviction for rape is too low - lets lower the burden of proof and make it easier to convict". Ultimately rape is relatively unique as a crime in that it often comes down to "he said/ she said". In that scenario the presumption of innocence and burden of proof associated means that conviction rates are inevitably lower.

Rape report stats are low enough already and even lower going to trial because it's so traumatic, so a balance needs to be struck here

How would you propose to strike the balance. Its all well and good saying that the trauma involved creates an issue, but how do you address this and still ensure the accused gets a fair trial?

tritium

tritium wrote: »

How would you propose to strike the balance. Its all well and good saying that the trauma involved creates an issue, but how do you address this and still ensure the accused gets a fair trial?

Someone else here said there should be the criterion of the person admitting they were lying or some other definitive proof that they were, which sounds about right. I guess I'm trying to say that lack of evidence is one thing, but you need to put forward a case for someone actually lying as another thing
If it has been proven that they were lying, go for it

Painted Pony

The Big Smoke wrote: »

It will simply reduce the level of false accusations.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure if it would. These cases, as far as we know (and of course we don’t know the full SP) are thankfully rare but the few cases I have heard about have come to light because the false accuser fessed up. And I think, most of the time, that is the only way it might happen.

Now can you imagine someone who made such a false accusation and are having pangs of guilt, do you think it is more likely that they will repent if they know it means they will do serious jail time? A harsh potential punishment, unfortunately, gives them more reason to stay silent.

The real issue here, as some have alluded to, is how an innocent person managed to be convicted in the first place. Presumably the jury find her tale more believer that the guys and convicted on this basis. (I recall the prosecutor in the Le Vell case alluded to something similar. “If you believe the accuser, you must convict”)

But that strikes me as being consistent with the civil case, balance of probabilities standard of proof and not the beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal matter.

desertcircus

The Big Smoke wrote: »

So to sum up.

1. It isn't happening enough so lets keep a lid on reporting it until it becomes a problem

2. Rapists don't get punished but lets make sure the innocent are.

3. Whataboutery and some ****e regarding politics.

It's this simple, this is a thread about a man who was falsly accused of rape. This man has lost his free will for 4 years and can never get it back. For the rest of his life he will have to live with the "theres no smoke without fire" accusations". She gets jail on a weekend and 90,000 to give to her victim.

To deter false accusations, impose tougher sentences for the accusers. It really is that simple. This will not impact on a rape victim coming forward, it will not somehow make tough sentences for rape disappear. It will simply reduce the level of false accusations.

Or:

1. Broad policy decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of once-off outlier cases.

2. This is just a vicious and completely false claim about what I was saying, directly contradicted by the fact that I pointed out the risk of such a policy making it less likely for people to admit to having made false claims.

3. At this point, it's perfectly clear that you're just not even bothering to read what I've written and have taken the word "politics" and stuck it in a repetition of your original, wrong, post.

Finally: it's not that simple. Do you think a woman will be more likely to come forward if she knows she'll be treated fairly and with compassion, or if she knows that she's guaranteed a lengthy sentence?

lahalane

Maybe it was a more lenient sentence because she was 17 when she made the claims and therefore a minor? Just speculating so I'm open to correction.

tritium

desertcircus wrote: »

Or:

1. Broad policy decisions shouldn't be made on the basis of once-off outlier cases.

Unfortunately that's exactly how public discourse on crime happens. It works both ways by the way - how many seemingly light sentences provoke pages of outraged comment across the full spectrum of crime, including sexual offences, without the background being reported. How many people on boards might assume sentencing for rape was unduly lenient for example based on the cases that get listed here?

Do you think a woman will be more likely to come forward if she knows she'll be treated fairly and with compassion, or if she knows that she's guaranteed a lengthy sentence?

Compassion isn't something that most people would advocate for criminals, especially those whose crimes effectively ruin the life of their victims. If you're saying that a confession may lead to a plea bargain and lighter sentence then fine, but the idea that a slap on the wrist is appropriate would simply be insulting both to victims of this crime and to real victims of rape.

dark crystal

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes, sentences should be longer IMO, but not equal to the sentence a rapist gets, as is sometimes suggested. She didn't rape anyone.

She raped him of his dignity, his reputation, his freedom and his innocence. Convicted rapists are also targets for attack in prisons - he could have been seriously physically hurt while incarcerated.

She also struck a blow to all the genuine victims of rape, who may see their attackers walk free because the jury might have enough added doubt in their minds because of cases like this.

Two months is a joke - she should have gotten at least two years.