I'm going to express a controversial opinion here: I think, on balance, this was the best result for the sake of justice. I'll explain why.

It feels wrong that she's being punished less than the person she lied about, when it is proven that she lied. But I think there's actually a very good reason why. Speaking as a girl, and speaking from experience, there's already a lot of reasons why a girl might decide not to report that she was sexually assaulted or raped. Social blowback, the fear of reprisal, the fear that she may not be believed, not wanting to be dragged into an arduous legal battle where she would have to face her rapist again. Maybe she still lives with her rapist, or someone close to her is protecting them, making things difficult for her. With all these reasons already stacked against her, add one more: if there's not enough proof, she might be accused of lying and face punishment for it. That's the thing that the judge has to balance against getting justice for the victim of this heinous bitch's lies.

Granted, I'm sure the amount of proof required to prove that she deliberately lied was much higher than merely casting doubt on her claims. But someone who is already feeling anxious and attacked and hurt, may not consider that. They may just feel like they're going to be attacked again, and decide to avoid the possibility. And so their rapist walks free.

This example is not just idle speculation. I'm somewhat speaking from experience here. I didn't report my rape for these reasons. Granted, I had other anxiety issues going on at that time, but in the end, I didn't report it because I was afraid. Of being disbelieved and attacked, of facing my attacker again, of... everything.

So while I agree that this person is a heinous bitch, and I agree that it sucks that she wasn't punished more harshly, I don't disagree with the Judge's decision, assuming he actually considered this when he was making it. If it had been me, I would probably have made the same decision - or at least a similar one.