I'm not sure what to make of this

The rationale is more likely to avoid creating a precedent of disincentive
of other liars from ending the predatory effects of their deceptions.

I think that is what the proscutor did give as the reason--they didn't want to discourage other children who might have lied about sexual abuse from later coming forward and telling the truth.

That's a valid reason because the primary concern should be correcting the miscarriage of justice, clearing someone's name, and freeing someone who has been unjustly imprisoned. Whether you want to punish someone, who was only 11 or 12 years old, for giving the false testimony that led to that conviction is really secondary. We don't normally punish children that age for perjury or obstruction of justice.

DAVID wrote:

I wonder whether he will AVENGE himself upon her.

We don't know how he feels toward her--she is his child and he might still care about her
despite what he has been through.

According to the information in this thread's opening post,
it was to encourage other girls to report rape.

According to the information in this thread's opening post,
it was to encourage other girls to report rape.

I read other news articles about this case where the prosecutor said she didn't want to discourage children from recanting false testimony because they feared punishment. And that really makes more sense than the explanation cited in the opening post.

My mood's tip-top, David.

There MUST have been some collaborating evidence