Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73491)	8/27/2003 4:06:27 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"Yeah, but on the stand?" Especially there. Some of the witnesses may be uninvolved; but where there IS involvement (self interest)--there is also prejudice and personal agenda. If you are on the stand and a lie will shave 5 years off a ten year sentence--will you lie? Then why didn't you just plead guilty and take the ten years?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73491)	8/27/2003 4:11:09 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I'm quite sure I couldn't lie convincingly under oath because I'd be too conflicted, so there would be no point in even trying, were I so inclined in the first place, which I probably wouldn't be." Under oath? What difference does it make?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73491)	8/27/2003 4:24:12 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Yeah, but on the stand? I would think that the vast majority of people would take that pretty seriously. One would like to think that. My experience is otherwise. Witnesses are more often likely to tell the truth as they think they know it. And in business litigation, there is a pretty good level of truth. But in family law, where the court is dividing up property and setting who gets the children when and who gets protective orders, truth often seems to take a back door to self interest.