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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (6649)	10/2/1998 5:20:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Assume that if you told a lie it would save a life as compared to a lie that would cause a life to be lost[under oath or not].>> Our system is based on laws. Breaking a law has consequences. If you lied under oath in order to save a life, you would still be guilty of perjury and should be willing to pay the price, whatever that might be. Of course, the analogy is highly flawed, because you can always refuse to answer if you think the truth might result in someones death. You could also discuss the issue with the judge to explain why you shouldn't be compelled to answer. Once again, the reason for lying would be irrelevant. You wouldn't have to lie to save the person's life, but if you did, you should still pay the price.