SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DMaA who wrote (1957)9/28/2006 1:35:12 PM
From: Ilaine  Respond to of 10087
 
I don't think more people lie under oath than when they're not under oath, but I also don't think fewer lie under oath than when they're not under oath.

People lie. But most of the time, the judges and juries see through them, because it's hard to keep lies straight, a lie is more convoluted than the truth.

As a lawyer, I can't knowingly put a perjurer on the stand, but I don't always believe what my client is telling me, either.

If they stick to their story come hell or high water, and I don't have independent evidence that they're lying, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Which is why I try to stick to bankruptcies and uncontested divorces these days. Less ability to lie and get away with it.



To: DMaA who wrote (1957)9/28/2006 2:02:08 PM
From: Jim S  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
Lying under oath is one thing, but judicially sanctioned lying is something else again.

Investigators are permitted, sometimes even encouraged, to lie to a suspect to get him to confess or provide more information about the investigation. And the Supreme Court says it's ok.

I laughed out loud at a cop I saw on TV during an interview. He said, "I'm a cop, we don't lie." It was then time for me to roll on the floor for a while.