Burden of Proof

 Guys,

Below is a comment my response to someone else's comment to a video about a false accusation. The YouTube channel, Hearit Stories, ran this video. Hearit Stories is a GREAT channel, BTW! Though its content is AI generated, the stories are compelling. One of the commenters wondered why Robert, the man who was falsely accused, didn't also file criminal charges on top of his successful lawsuit. Below is my response, based on my experience, why Robert may  not have gone ahead with criminal charges.

-----------------

It all depends on how the criminal statutes are worded in his state. I was falsely accused back in the 1990s by a woman I'd dated briefly. In court, she LIED her ass off! She told many flagrant, blatant, and obvious lies, lies that could easily be disproved. Hence, I looked into filing charges against her, particularly false swearing. In NJ, false swearing is like perjury, but one doesn't have to prove corroboration and all that; it doesn't have the same burdensome requirements of a full blown perjury charge. For false swearing, all one has to do is show that the defendant made two conflicting statements, and that both can't be true simultaneously; all you have to show is that one of the statements is false. If you look back at the OJ trial, what Kato Kaelin said and did would be an example of false swearing.

HOWEVER! However, in NJ, where I'm from and where my case happened, there's a critical phrase in both the perjury and false swearing statutes, a phrase that would give my accuser an out. In both statutes, there's a phrase that says, "believed by the defendant to be true." Why was that crucial in my case? Well, she had an eating disorder, so she could argue that her mental perception was clouded sufficiently that she believed what she said to be true. She could easily get any psychologist to testify to this. Because of that and a desire to get on with my life, I didn't follow through with criminal charges.

Secondly, because of the "believe all women" trope, there's a serious reluctance on the part of the criminal justice system to prosecute women for false accusations, lying to the authorities, etc. Back then, it wasn't called "believe all women"; there was no hashtag with that name. Nevertheless, the concept existed, and it was practiced. When researching my case, there was, a case in Oakland, CA where a woman falsely accused a man and committed perjury. IIRC, she even ADMITTED to it! Even so, the prosecutor declined to bring charges, as doing so was politically explosive. That's what men face in these situations.

Thirdly, for criminal charges, regardless of how the applicable statutes are worded, there's also the matter of a higher burden of proof for a criminal case. In a civil case, all that one needs is a preponderance of the evidence; all one has to do is show that there's at least a 51% chance that X happened. OTOH, with a criminal charge, one has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is much more difficult to do.

In closing, filing criminal charges, particularly against a woman, is difficult. Even casting aside the "believe all women" belief and practice, the applicable criminal statutes' language may leave her a way out; the hole may be big enough for a truck! There's the matter of"believe all women", which makes bringing charges at all problematic; no one wants to be seen as hurting the damsel in distress. Finally, the burden of proof for a criminal charge is far higher than that required for a civil case; the proof that may be sufficient for a civil case may fall short of what's required for a criminal charge.