Perjury laws?

[tkioz]

So I was watching one of those cop shows and some dude lied under oath and at the end of the show they said how he got 6 months inside for perjury and I just leaned back thinking "wtf, how weak"

I looked it up, perjury laws are rarely used, and in for example in the UK it's a max of 7 years inside... how pathetic. The way I see perjury is it's the ultimate act of spitting in the face of your community. It has nothing to do with swearing before God, that could be left out, but when you testify you're swearing tell the truth, swearing an oath to your community, your society, that you will respect their laws and honour it.

IMO perjury laws should be at least half of the sentence of the most serious crime on the docket, if the person on trail is facing 25 years, if your found to have committed perjury, you get 12.5 years inside, and maybe be forced to have it marked on all your ID, so that people know what an untrustworthy bastard you are.

opinions?

 

[Starke]

I remember in a support arbitration my psychotic ex perjured herself. Not once, but constantly. Because of her earlier discovery motions my lawyer and I had come with a mountain of phone bills from that era, and we were able to prove with physical evidence that she was perjuring herself.

She didn't get charged, though, pushing for that could have been entertaining, but it did cause her to lose the support hearing to a degree that quite simply shouldn't have been possible.

Basically perjury laws are there to nail hardened criminals. Not for people lying under oath, which is still a really bad idea.

 

[tkioz]

I remember in a support arbitration my psychotic ex perjured herself. Not once, but constantly. Because of her earlier discovery motions my lawyer and I had come with a mountain of phone bills from that era, and we were able to prove with physical evidence that she was perjuring herself.

She didn't get charged, though, pushing for that could have been entertaining, but it did cause her to lose the support hearing to a degree that quite simply shouldn't have been possible.

Basically perjury laws are there to nail hardened criminals. Not for people lying under oath, which is still a really bad idea.

Ostensibly the criminal justice system (and it's civil counterpart to a degree) aren't there to punish the criminals or provide justice to the victims, those are by-products of the systems true aim, to deter criminality, a tougher stance of perjury in the past would've made your "psychotic ex" consider twice before perjuring herself.

 

[Miumaru]

Well, maybe if they dont make me swear to someone I am pretty sure doesnt exist except to motivate crazy people, it would happen less. Ok, I doubt that, but if I wouldnt be scared shitless for being on a stand, Id be tempted to lie just to spite religion. (But Im not that stupid, its just tempting in my head)

 

[Low Key]

Perjury laws are harsh so people are motivated to actually tell the truth. Loosen them up and people might think twice before truthfully testifying because a couple years in jail is nothing to them, where as close to a decade would be.

 

[tkioz]

Perjury laws are harsh so people are motivated to actually tell the truth. Loosen them up and people might think twice before truthfully testifying because a couple years in jail is nothing to them, where as close to a decade would be.

Kind of what I said... only they aren't harsh, they are pathetic and rarely used, I think strapping people to FRMI while on trail for perjury, one question "did you knowingly lie to the court?" bang, jail.

 

[Starke]

I remember in a support arbitration my psychotic ex perjured herself. Not once, but constantly. Because of her earlier discovery motions my lawyer and I had come with a mountain of phone bills from that era, and we were able to prove with physical evidence that she was perjuring herself.

She didn't get charged, though, pushing for that could have been entertaining, but it did cause her to lose the support hearing to a degree that quite simply shouldn't have been possible.

Basically perjury laws are there to nail hardened criminals. Not for people lying under oath, which is still a really bad idea.

Ostensibly the criminal justice system (and it's civil counterpart to a degree) aren't there to punish the criminals or provide justice to the victims, those are by-products of the systems true aim, to deter criminality, a tougher stance of perjury in the past would've made your "psychotic ex" consider twice before perjuring herself.

I kinda doubt it. She was a pathological (compulsive) liar. Nothing could get her to tell the truth if tens of thousands of dollars were riding on it (which they were).

 

[tkioz]

While we're at it, we need Malicious Perjury as well, I know some places have it, but everywhere needs it and it needs to be enforced with an iron fist, you hear about men that are accused for being paedophiles or domestic abusers by vindictive ex-wives and having their lives ruined, only to come out... shockly she was just being a *****.

The reasons for needing this are two fold, firstly it prevents, or at least discourages, stupid people from pulling this crap, and secondly, just like with false rape claims, it makes it harder for real victims to be taken seriously.

 

[Low Key]

Perjury laws are harsh so people are motivated to actually tell the truth. Loosen them up and people might think twice before truthfully testifying because a couple years in jail is nothing to them, where as close to a decade would be.

Kind of what I said... only they aren't harsh, they are pathetic and rarely used, I think strapping people to FRMI while on trail for perjury, one question "did you knowingly lie to the court?" bang, jail.

They are rarely used because people know better than to lie under oath. And I guess the American and British judicial systems are different because perjury is usually found out here through further testimony from others, as in what one person said didn't correspond with what another person said.