Reasonable doubt that X is guilty is not the same as proof beyond reasonable doubt that X's accuser is guilty.

There can be reasonable doubt in both directions.

There is some logic to it, in a sense that, the more serious the false accusation, the higher the potential damage to the victim - so penalty must also be proportionally higher.

(Note that it didn't say "same crime", only "same sentence".)

It's clear to me that/why people want punishment to be more severe, and proportional to the seriousness.

Perhaps I'm being too literal and the call for "same sentence" is just for effect.

False accusers are harming real victims, too.

>If I falsely accuse the President of treason, and he is found innocent, should I be convicted of treason?

Please go into detail in regards to how this hypothetical scenario would unfold. I can't wait to hear your explanation for how some random person accusing the President of treason could possibly lead to any sort of trial.

I really can't tell what you want me to explain or what your point is, but I'd love to help.