Sweden and Denmark have highest number of sexual assaults in Europe - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49494681]You keep repeating this as if it's going to convince me without actually putting in the effort of creating an effective argument. I'm fully willing to be convinced that I'm wrong and that current perjury law as it exists in basically the western hemisphere needs changing but I'm not going to change my mind by reading the same scenario for the third time. [/QUOTE] Quite frankly I have put it as simply as I can possibly make it yet you still don't get it. Your argument is essentially a person should receive the same punishment for shooting a gun regardless of context. Be it at a designated firing range or in the public.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49494679]But it's not really a hypothetical. The counts being brought against the defendant are laid out before the trial even begins. I think perjury should, somehow, be tied to the possible consequences of your actions, just like every other crime. If I'm negligent at work and it puts your car in danger of being destroyed, I might get fined a bit. If I'm negligent at work and it puts your life in danger, I would get a bigger punishment.[/QUOTE] It's entirely hypothetical because sentencing comes after the trial, the trial which has just been impacted by false testimony. Depending on how integral this testimony is the entire proceedings could be unnecessary and the case dropped and the defendant acquitted. This is why perjury punishments are based on how they damage the proceedings and not the hypothetical results of the trial continuing through sentencing. I believe that is the most fair way to handle the punishment variance for perjury because that is based on empirical fact. [editline]9th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Thlis;49494717]Quite frankly I have put it as simply as I can possibly make it yet you still don't get it. Your argument is essentially a person should receive the same punishment for shooting a gun regardless of context. Be it at a designated firing range or in the public.[/QUOTE] This is a complete mischaracterization of my argument and a terrible metaphor. It isn't that I "don't get it", your scenario is an extraordinarily simple one. It's just that I disagree with your opinions on law and you don't seem interested in making me see things your way, simply stating that they have to be right and that there is something wrong with me for not possibly understanding your logical high ground. [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49494691]Lying about rape harms innocent people, including [B]actual rape victims[/B].[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware of this, thanks Rangergxi.

The difference in our examples is that in the civil dispute case, someone is simply lying to try and avoid financial loss, they are not trying to use the law to destroy someone else, they are lying to try to mitigate it's effects. When someone uses a false rape accusation they are using the law as a weapon to destroy someone else's life and damaging the credibility of every actual rape victims testimony. The two are hardly comparable. Not that I agree that they should serve the exact same punishment the defendant would have gotten, but it should definitely be more severe than other cases of perjury.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49494718]It's entirely hypothetical because sentencing comes after the trial, the trial which has just been impacted by false testimony. Depending on how integral this testimony is the entire proceedings could be unnecessary and the case dropped and the defendant acquitted. This is why perjury punishments are based on how they damage the proceedings and not the hypothetical results of the trial continuing through sentencing. I believe that is the most fair way to handle the punishment variance for perjury because that is based on empirical fact. [editline]9th January 2016[/editline] This is a complete mischaracterization of my argument and a terrible metaphor. It isn't that I "don't get it", your scenario is an extraordinarily simple one. It's just that I disagree with your opinions on law and you don't seem interested in making me see things your way, simply stating that they have to be right and that there is something wrong with me for not possibly understanding your logical high ground.[/QUOTE] No, it really is that you just don't get it. Intent is a component that is regularly factored into determining the severity of punishment for nearly every other crime in existence. That's why you're still severely punished for attempted murder even if no one gets hurt. But according to your logic I shouldn't be punished for failing to kill someone because that's just a hypothetical herp derp.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49491855]Damn son, I'd love to see those sources![/QUOTE] Would to myself, honestly, hence the "IIRC". Edit: Found A source, not the one i remember but still. Apparently it was "only" 7.3% of all accusations that are false, 2009, By the Danish "Kriminalpræventive Råd" (Criminal preventive counsel) [url]http://www.mx.dk/nyheder/danmark/story/16831397[/url] Though another source, using number from the danish police, says around 20% [url]http://www.information.dk/152991[/url]

[QUOTE=Disfunctional;49495939]Would to myself, honestly, hence the "IIRC". Edit: Found A source, not the one i remember but still. Apparently it was "only" 7.3% of all accusations that are false, 2009, By the Danish "Kriminalpræventive Råd" (Criminal preventive counsel) [url]http://www.mx.dk/nyheder/danmark/story/16831397[/url] Though another source, using number from the danish police, says around 20% [url]http://www.information.dk/152991[/url][/QUOTE] "False" in the case of the Danish one likely means unfounded, not necessarily made maliciously. It's a distinction that most people fail to make.