A lot of people are mostly decent, and would not be capable of a crime like rape, or of falsely accusing someone of such a crime maliciously. But some people are, and the law and its penalties should be designed to reflect this. There is therefore something hideously wrong with a situation where a reality TV contestant can be caught lying, admit to police that her accusation her ex-fiance raped her was made up, and then be fined just £95. If she had not been caught out, an innocent man could have been jailed for years, so how can it be reasonable that her only punishment is a fine equivalent to three parking tickets?
The only defence I can imagine is to say that making malicious accusations of rape is not as bad as committing rape, and so should be punished less severely. But this only makes sense insofar as the punishment for rape is does not reflect the seriousness of the crime. It's an argument for much tougher sentences for those found beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of the crime, not for lenience towards those found beyond reasonable doubt to have made malicious and false accusations of it. If the penalty does fit the crime, then by definition falsely and maliciously accusing an innocent person of that crime is as bad as committing it, and the legal punishment should be just as tough. Why isn't she in prison?
