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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (55998)	3/25/2008 10:17:13 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543272

I think if you are questioned about something, and it's not a crime, you should get to lie if you want to. I hate coercive government. Lying is a big part of being free, imo. I realized that, oddly enough, when I watched the Truman show. There's a man who can't lie about anything (except his inner state), since he's being filmed constantly. And imo it took away a big part of what it is to be human. I don't know many people who tell the truth about their sex lives, or all their activities, and I don't think their should be any requirement that you do. So if you committed a crime, and you're lying about it, then sure, bang the man up- but lying about something that's not a crime, like having sex with someone? That just doesn't strike me as anyone's business, let alone a reason to throw someone in jail, or imprison them. It's just wrong.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (55998)	3/25/2008 12:15:38 PM
From: DanD	Respond to of 543272

There is no statute that says well, we'll decide if the lie is important or not. That is an patently wrong statement, there are many points of law and precedent that determine what "perjury" is. Legally speaking every lie told under oath is not consider perjury. Lying, or making a statement which is false, is only rarely a matter of criminality. People lie every day and because lying is so pervasive, the law, as a practical matter, can do little to stop this common behavior. Even lying in court is unfortunately, a common occurrence. If you have ever listened to a divorce case, you know that both the husband and the wife cannot be telling the truth about everything. Sometimes the stories are so different, one wonders whether the parties were cohabitating on the same planet, much less in the same bedroom. By and large, around the country, juries and judges are left to figure out whose story is most believable and there are no legal ramifications for lying, other than losing the case when the judge or jury thinks a litigant’s lies deserve his losing. Technically, however, under some circumstances, lying in court reaches the level to where it can become a case of its own, and this is what we lawyers call perjury. To reach this level, the falsehood must be “material.” In practical terms, this means that the lie must be of such a nature that if believed, it could cause the jury or judge to render an improper verdict or decision. Lying about the color of a car, for example, may not be material in one case and very material in another. If the car happens to be a “getaway car, ” the lie could be very material because a judge or jury might be inclined to make the wrong verdict or decision based on the lie. But in many cases such a lie would be totally incidental and have no effect upon the outcome of the case and would be immaterial. dissidentvoice.org