False accusation is one of the more difficult things to write laws for, because it’s very difficult to prove. IE the problem is defining honest reasonable suspicions from blatent attacks… and differentiating cannot prove it from proven innocent. Perhaps in shoplifting I don’t care, but in other aspects of life, say rape or violence that I actually do care about. We don’t want someone to not report serious crimes because if they can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt the person is guilty, they open themselves up to the law swinging the other way. So it can’t directly be provably guilty that makes the line, which then goes to intent. Is the accuser making a reasonable claim that merits opening an investigation, or maliciously getting it wrong on purpose, which is almost impossible to prove one way or the other beyond them being dumb enough to brag about it on social media.
This is actually trivial. Corporations and authorities have massive resources expertise and time. Private individuals have none of these things so you favor the small fry in every interaction.
You only punish false reports by individuals which are obviously proven malicious and knowingly false while you screw companies and authorities to the wall for the slightest lack of due diligence.
Should have known that the person who you put through the wringer was innocent because they live in a different state and only vaguely look like the person in bad cctv but ai told you it was them 5 million from both company and gov and principals on both sides get fired and on the government side bannied from any gov job.
You can trivially treat both classes differently and get the desired result
False accusation is one of the more difficult things to write laws for, because it’s very difficult to prove. IE the problem is defining honest reasonable suspicions from blatent attacks… and differentiating cannot prove it from proven innocent. Perhaps in shoplifting I don’t care, but in other aspects of life, say rape or violence that I actually do care about. We don’t want someone to not report serious crimes because if they can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt the person is guilty, they open themselves up to the law swinging the other way. So it can’t directly be provably guilty that makes the line, which then goes to intent. Is the accuser making a reasonable claim that merits opening an investigation, or maliciously getting it wrong on purpose, which is almost impossible to prove one way or the other beyond them being dumb enough to brag about it on social media.
No, but if a private corporation accuses me of shoplifting, bisrmirching my good name, you better believe I’m going to sue for libel.
This is actually trivial. Corporations and authorities have massive resources expertise and time. Private individuals have none of these things so you favor the small fry in every interaction.
You only punish false reports by individuals which are obviously proven malicious and knowingly false while you screw companies and authorities to the wall for the slightest lack of due diligence.
Should have known that the person who you put through the wringer was innocent because they live in a different state and only vaguely look like the person in bad cctv but ai told you it was them 5 million from both company and gov and principals on both sides get fired and on the government side bannied from any gov job.
You can trivially treat both classes differently and get the desired result
But you make it unnecessarily difficult by mixing up the definition itself and the questions of proof.