Poll: Would you ever lie on a witness stand?

[Infinatex]

If I knew I would get away with it, and it benefited me in some way then yeah, sure.

 

[SimuLord]

A lie by omission ("Do you remember what happened that night?" "No.") to protect a friend I believed to be wrongly accused, I would do.

Otherwise, on the witness stand as in life, I swear by the goddess Iustitia to remain ever honest in my dealings with people and the world. To lie is against my religious beliefs (and oh by the way, for all you Christians out there, yours too.)

Bit of a contradiction there though. Unless your religion says "Never lie! Unless you believe it is right to do so!"

Doesn't make much sense.

The goddess Iustitia is the Roman goddess of justice (indeed the word comes from her name). If my friend is wrongly accused, and "the truth" would either be so wildly unbelievable as to destroy my credibility or otherwise be detrimental to the cause of securing justice for my friend, then my momentary dishonesty serves a greater cause.

 

[TWRule]

No, I wouldn't. If I didn't want the truth to be known, I never would have agreed to a truth-telling oath in the first place. Once I'm under oath, I'm obliged to tell the truth. Even if it was to protect myself, I wouldn't lie, because I believe in the need to take responsibility for my actions.

You do know that sometimes in some countries people are forced into testifying in a criminal case right?

Would it really be fair to honor an oath that you basically have been forced to take under duress?

My answer was under the assumption that I was dealing with the U.S. judicial system and similar systems.

It depends on what you mean by "forced" - but generally I'd say it's still a choice. If there's some possible way that you didn't choose to be under the expectation of truth (like you're just put into interrogation with no oath taken) - then no I don't think you're responsible for adherence to the truth (though you are still responsible for the potential consequences of whatever you say). If you take an oath and break it, you have to take responsibility for that, though that doesn't necessarily mean submission to a corrupt power if that's where you're going with this.

 

[QuadFish]

If they made me swear by the Bible (which they don't seem to do anymore) I'd be so offended that they assumed I'd be bound to honour by something I don't have any interest in, that I'd just have to lie to prove a point.

Not that I've been in any witness stands lately, let alone in any in the US. What's the deal with honesty pledges these days?

Oh, and the aforementioned false charges situation, obviously. Then again, if you had good reason to believe someone had been falsely charged, wouldn't your explanation be a true one?

 

[Fumbleumble]

I don't have a problem with lying on the witness stand.

I've been a law abiding person all my life and if asked the same question 10-20 years ago I would have been horrified at any answer but 'NO'..

However as I got older and realised the truth about the legal system my opinions changed rather drastically... that fact remains that there isn't a criminal alive who doesn't lie in the box, police will say anything that suits their purposes in court, the lawyers go into court with a defence/prosecution that they think they can get away with truth has very little relevence there, and judges get bought and sold every day of the week... the only people who do tell the truth are the victims and non-hostile witnesses, and we are all perfectly aware of the lack of positive results for those people... so yeah, why not?.......

Lie your fucking ass off and let them prove it.

And I don't have any conflict about swearing on the bible, because I don't believe there either, in fact that has even less relevence than the legal system.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

My answer was under the assumption that I was dealing with the U.S. judicial system and similar systems.

The U.S judicial system is pretty low grade if you ask me. I mean we're talking about the same system that accepts lawsuits filed against a fast-food restaurant because some customers got their tounges burned because the food or coffee was "too hot".

"Serious business" in the U.S, "irrelevant crap" everywhere else in the world.

And if we're talking exclusively criminal cases then you can't seriously tell me that you haven't learned of some of the coercion tricks that the prosecution use in so many instances?

It depends on what you mean by "forced" - but generally I'd say it's still a choice. If there's some possible way that you didn't choose to be under the expectation of truth (like you're just put into interrogation with no oath taken) - then no I don't think you're responsible for adherence to the truth (though you are still responsible for the potential consequences of whatever you say). If you take an oath and break it, you have to take responsibility for that, though that doesn't necessarily mean submission to a corrupt power if that's where you're going with this.

The prosecution often has a way of coercing reluctant witnesses into testifying. The "do as we tell you or we'll decide to treat you like a suspect and destroy your social life in the process" is a classic, among other used tactics.

Now overall im a pretty honest person myself, and if I say im going to tell the truth then I tell the truth. But if that "promise" has been brought about by some asswipe prosecutor trying to force me into supporting his or her cause then you can be damn sure that I'll do pretty much anything I can to fuck with that prosecutors case. I'd even say that I would go on stand and then suddenly change my mind in court to damage the bastards case as much as possible out of sheer spite...

 

[TWRule]

The U.S judicial system is pretty low grade if you ask me. I mean we're talking about the same system that accepts lawsuits filed against a fast-food restaurant because some customers got their tounges burned because the food or coffee was "too hot".

"Serious business" in the U.S, "irrelevant crap" everywhere else in the world.

I'm not sure how the significance of the average U.S. court case is relevant to my following-through with a truth-taking oath.

And if we're talking exclusively criminal cases then you can't seriously tell me that you haven't learned of some of the coercion tricks that the prosecution use in so many instances?

The prosecution often has a way of coercing reluctant witnesses into testifying. The "do as we tell you or we'll decide to treat you like a suspect and destroy your social life in the process" is a classic, among other used tactics.

Now overall im a pretty honest person myself, and if I say im going to tell the truth then I tell the truth. But if that "promise" has been brought about by some asswipe prosecutor trying to force me into supporting his or her cause then you can be damn sure that I'll do pretty much anything I can to fuck with that prosecutors case. I'd even say that I would go on stand and then suddenly change my mind in court to damage the bastards case as much as possible out of sheer spite...

Coercion or not, the choice is ultimately yours whether to take the oath, and whether to break it. You have to take responsibility for your actions regardless. If you take the oath, you have to accept that breaking it may result in jail time or other consequences. If you refuse to take it, maybe the corrupt prosecutor will take action against you, but there are channels you can appeal to to deal with that sort of thing, and ultimately it's not relevant to your responsibility for your choice.

 

[Kortney]

A lie by omission ("Do you remember what happened that night?" "No.") to protect a friend I believed to be wrongly accused, I would do.

Otherwise, on the witness stand as in life, I swear by the goddess Iustitia to remain ever honest in my dealings with people and the world. To lie is against my religious beliefs (and oh by the way, for all you Christians out there, yours too.)

Bit of a contradiction there though. Unless your religion says "Never lie! Unless you believe it is right to do so!"

Doesn't make much sense.

The goddess Iustitia is the Roman goddess of justice (indeed the word comes from her name). If my friend is wrongly accused, and "the truth" would either be so wildly unbelievable as to destroy my credibility or otherwise be detrimental to the cause of securing justice for my friend, then my momentary dishonesty serves a greater cause.

Ah ok I see. Thanks for explaining

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Coercion or not, the choice is ultimately yours whether to take the oath, and whether to break it. You have to take responsibility for your actions regardless. If you take the oath, you have to accept that breaking it may result in jail time or other consequences. If you refuse to take it, maybe the corrupt prosecutor will take action against you, but there are channels you can appeal to to deal with that sort of thing, and ultimately it's not relevant to your responsibility for your choice.

Sorry but, I have no responsibility towards a coercive "justice" system. My only responsibility is to myself and to make their struggle as fucking miserable as possible if they stoop to intimidating me into serving their cause.

So according to my morals, im actually more obliged to breaking such sham oaths than to uphold them.

 

[TWRule]

Coercion or not, the choice is ultimately yours whether to take the oath, and whether to break it. You have to take responsibility for your actions regardless. If you take the oath, you have to accept that breaking it may result in jail time or other consequences. If you refuse to take it, maybe the corrupt prosecutor will take action against you, but there are channels you can appeal to to deal with that sort of thing, and ultimately it's not relevant to your responsibility for your choice.

Sorry but, I have no responsibility towards a coercive "justice" system. My only responsibility is to myself and to make their struggle as fucking miserable as possible if they stoop to intimidating me into serving their cause.

So according to my morals, im actually more obliged to breaking such sham oaths than to uphold them.

I didn't say you were responsible out of some sort of obligation to a state instituition. If you swear the oath, you did it, you're responsible for it. There are better ways to defeat corruption than trying to subvert it. All you're doing is soiling your own hands then.

But anyway, let's say you took the oath and then later realized you couldn't go through with it for moral reasons. You act as you do knowing that you may be punished for breaking your oath. That's the type of responsibility I was talking about. If you sabotage the trial, you can't later say "well, I had no choice but to do that - you can't hold me accountable for my actions."

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I didn't say you were responsible out of some sort of obligation to a state instituition.

Then what do I have an obligation to if not myself? If I don't see any sort of obligation to the very state and institution that tries to coerce me into doing it's bidding, then the only person I have any sort of obligation to would be myself and my own interests, right?

And if my interests concern making a false oath in order to damage the case of that coercive state and institution then that's pretty much what I have to do, least I become immoral.

The decision to remain true and honest, and keeping promises and oaths is really a question about honour. Honour has killed more people than disease if you think about it, but im really doing the honourable thing here (since I have a personal sense of honour and a set of standards that I abide by).

And these standards tell me that an institution trying to win a case through less than honourable means (like let's say: coerce a reluctant witness into testifying by abusing their authority) should be opposed if one wishes to remain an honourable individual.

Quite simply, you're only obliged to honour an oath taken on honourable grounds. Honouring an oath forced upon you through less than honourable grounds would only be wasteful and it would also serve to promote less than honourable behaviour in people.

If you swear the oath, you did it, you're responsible for it. There are better ways to defeat corruption than trying to subvert it. All you're doing is soiling your own hands then.

Sorry but that's a rather naive sentiment. The system is corrupt by default, so there are no "better ways" to fight it when it gets out of line. Sabotage is the most effective tool against an overly powerful enemy.

But anyway, let's say you took the oath and then later realized you couldn't go through with it for moral reasons. You act as you do knowing that you may be punished for breaking your oath. That's the type of responsibility I was talking about. If you sabotage the trial, you can't later say "well, I had no choice but to do that - you can't hold me accountable for my actions."

Im indifferent towards others opinions as to my accountability or not. Mostly because we live in a society where people are being wrongly held accountable all the time. It's a form of oppression that you can either accept or sabotage as much as possible.

I choose the latter option, and I choose to do it with intelligence and premeditation so that I'll be successful rather than getting caught and thus hindered from causing further sabotage.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I don't really think so. At least its not very likely. I might lie if I felt that it would helpt the right outcome, but for the most part I probably wouldn't outright lie.

Now would I omit critical information, phrase what I'm saying in a particular way, answer vaguely, or use other ways of persuasion? You can bet your sweet ass I would.

 

[MagicMouse]

Our "Justice" system is corrupt and incompetent. I will do what I see fit to make the trial go in my favor.

 

[TWRule]

-snip-

You are responsible for yourself and you're responsible for the responsibility of others. That's not "honor" it's ethics. Following through fall under what should be done to ensure the most fair interactions for everyone.

Sorry but that's a rather naive sentiment. The system is corrupt by default, so there are no "better ways" to fight it when it gets out of line. Sabotage is the most effective tool against an overly powerful enemy.

I think we are talking about two different scenarios here. You mentioned a corrupt prosecutor, not an entirely corrupt system. When I said that there are other channels for dealing with the prosecutor's corruption, I assumed that there were at least some people around who were reasonable enough to hold him responsible for corruption. In the rare case that everyone around is corrupt and unreasonable from top to bottom, and the system itself is somehow unethical - then no, of course you don't need to worry about breaking some oath as much as you do making sure human rights are being upheld some way or another.

Im indifferent towards others opinions as to my accountability or not. Mostly because we live in a society where people are being wrongly held accountable all the time. It's a form of oppression that you can either accept or sabotage as much as possible.

I choose the latter option, and I choose to do it with intelligence and premeditation so that I'll be successful rather than getting caught and thus hindered from causing further sabotage.

Further ethical violations don't fix previous ones. If you want to encourage people to act ethically, be ethical in action yourself. It may be okay to break an oath in extreme cases if you can be sure it means protecting human freedoms in the grand scheme, but if you walked into a U.S. courtroom tomorrow and lied under oath - you're making an ethical violation, no matter who threatened you with what. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

-snip-

You are responsible for yourself and you're responsible for the responsibility of others. That's not "honor" it's ethics. Following through fall under what should be done to ensure the most fair interactions for everyone.

Sorry but that's a rather naive sentiment. The system is corrupt by default, so there are no "better ways" to fight it when it gets out of line. Sabotage is the most effective tool against an overly powerful enemy.

I think we are talking about two different scenarios here. You mentioned a corrupt prosecutor, not an entirely corrupt system. When I said that there are other channels for dealing with the prosecutor's corruption, I assumed that there were at least some people around who were reasonable enough to hold him responsible for corruption. In the rare case that everyone around is corrupt and unreasonable from top to bottom, and the system itself is somehow unethical - then no, of course you don't need to worry about breaking some oath as much as you do making sure human rights are being upheld some way or another.

Im indifferent towards others opinions as to my accountability or not. Mostly because we live in a society where people are being wrongly held accountable all the time. It's a form of oppression that you can either accept or sabotage as much as possible.

I choose the latter option, and I choose to do it with intelligence and premeditation so that I'll be successful rather than getting caught and thus hindered from causing further sabotage.

Further ethical violations don't fix previous ones. If you want to encourage people to act ethically, be ethical in action yourself. It may be okay to break an oath in extreme cases if you can be sure it means protecting human freedoms in the grand scheme, but if you walked into a U.S. courtroom tomorrow and lied under oath - you're making an ethical violation, no matter who threatened you with what. That's all I'm saying.

Ethics are relative according to equally relative moral standards. They are also completely debatable. What counts as "ethical" according to a particular justice system doesn't necessarily have to resemble my own subjective kind of ethics that I ascribe to.

Thus it wouldn't be ethical of me to adopt someone/something elses kind of ethics and supplant my own with them.

In fact, the only way to argue about how ethical a particular course of action is, is to measure how consistent it is. I've been over my own ethics and morals and know for a fact that they are staying consistent and non-hypocritical, which is more than you can say about pretty much every legal system in the world.

That's why I will always go with my own ethics and morals than the governments, even if it means breaking laws or sabotaging the case of a prosecutor.

I'll cooperate with an honourable prosecutor or defense attorney if they ask me to and I think that their goal is an honourable one. But if they ever try to pull me out of any reluctance I might feel at the prospect through intimidation, then the case becomes irrelevant and I'll have to do what I can to cause as much damage to their case as possible.

 

[TWRule]

-snip-

I'm using "ethics" in the sense of the science of human freedom - in which case the main value is freedom and everything grows from that. If you believe in free will, the system I've been describing is the most self-consistent that I know of. If you don't - well then you're right, there are plenty of other systems you can come up with (though ethics would no longer be the science of human freedom but something else). Then again, if you don't believe in free will, it's sort of pointless to talk about a justice system anyway since no one could rightfully be held responsible for their actions. Morality, and actions based off of it, are indeed relative, but that is not the sort of action being discussed here. Morality and ethics are often used synonymously, but there is an important distinction we should honor.

It doesn't matter what the source of the oath is. There is no such thing as "governmental ethics." People just have to take responsibility for their own actions, whatever that might entail. Of course, that means that everyone needs to be held responsible for their actions, including the corrupt prosecutor. Your courtroom oath is not solely to him or the government in particular, but to all the citizens of your nation. His need to act justly toward you is part of the rules he agreed to upon taking his job.

If you follow-through with your oath which he coerced you into and it's later discovered what happened - you are absolutely blameless, but he can be punished. Likewise, if you refuse the oath and he follows up his threats - again, punishment is only warranted for him. If you take the oath but then purposely obstruct justice, then you can be held accountable for an ethical violation to everyone's right to the operations of a fair justice system (even though the prosecutor would still also be punished later if people found out what he did). You are not only affecting the prosecutor here, but everyone involved. Therefore even a moral cause may not absolve you in the ethical sense.

 

[Astoria]

I think the only time I would is if the person on trial was someone who meant the world to me and if they were found guilty they'd go to jail for a long time (10+ years). Apart from that I'd tell the truth.

 

[cannot_aim]

It would have to be for a good cause or for someone who I knew was innocent but couldn't prove it.