Suppose a false witness blames someone for a crime they did not commit. The judge in this particular case decides to sentence the person to twice as long as people normally get sentenced to for committing that type of crime, with similar circumstances. Question: Should the false witness get punished more because the judge decided to sentence the other person to a longer prison sentence? Suppose they don't find out the witness was lying until after the innocent person has already served the majority of their sentence. This is kind of an interesting ethical dilemma question, which I hope will spark a lively debate. We all agree that the false witness should be punished for getting an innocent person sent to prison. But can they also be held responsible for the judge's discretionary decision unduly sentencing the innocent person to longer than normal? I see getting into some murky ethical issues when laying all the blame on one person from something that also resulted from the decision of another. Should the punishment for the false witness all be based on how long the judge sentences the innocent defendant to, rather than what the alleged crime actually is?