Poll: Would you ever lie on a witness stand?

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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.

I am using ethics in the sense of human freedom.

The thing is, you have a more or less blind faith that governments and individual justice systems actually functions as some kind of "guardians" of human freedom, which they have never done in reality. They are merely masquerading as guardians of individual liberties in order to fulfill fulfill the needs of the powerful to assume self-perpetuation. The bullshit about safeguarding "freedom" is just a sham in order to fool people into thinking that it's what these institutions do and that it makes them important and worth keeping around and even let them INTRUDE on our personal freedom in order to supposedly "safeguard" it.

I however do not buy into this masquerade. Personal freedom is something you have to TAKE, because it can't be given. Thus when an institution is trying to coerce me into something with threats of taking away my freedom or somehow sabotage my freedom, I fight back rather than buy into their bullshit.

It is the only ethical and moral thing for me to do. I have to show this institutionalized act of coercion that coercion will not generate any benificient results when used against people who consider themselves "free". Playing along their arbitrary rules and sham courts only solidifies their opinion of me as a slave and not as a free individual.

 

[TWRule]

I am using ethics in the sense of human freedom.

The thing is, you have a more or less blind faith that governments and individual justice systems actually functions as some kind of "guardians" of human freedom, which they have never done in reality. They are merely masquerading as guardians of individual liberties in order to fulfill fulfill the needs of the powerful to assume self-perpetuation. The bullshit about safeguarding "freedom" is just a sham in order to fool people into thinking that it's what these institutions do and that it makes them important and worth keeping around and even let them INTRUDE on our personal freedom in order to supposedly "safeguard" it.

I however do not buy into this masquerade. Personal freedom is something you have to TAKE, because it can't be given. Thus when an institution is trying to coerce me into something with threats of taking away my freedom or somehow sabotage my freedom, I fight back rather than buy into their bullshit.

It is the only ethical and moral thing for me to do. I have to show this institutionalized act of coercion that coercion will not generate any benificient results when used against people who consider themselves "free". Playing along their arbitrary rules and sham courts only solidifies their opinion of me as a slave and not as a free individual.

Well, I can't say I share your generalized confrontational view of justice systems - their rules were formed through social contract, not some tyrant - at least in democratic nations. We all created a justice system for the very real purposes of upholding freedom, so if you can somehow prove that a certain part of the system is subverting that goal or it is inconsistent with that goal by design, then it can be brought to light and changed. I don't see how breaking the rules demonstrates that the rules are unfair, unless you were doing something completely within your individual rights in the first place. The best way to ethically protest would be to refuse the oath and then bring any provable ethical violations by the system to proper attentions so that they may be remedied. That way no one's rights are compromised by you in any way, and there is still a route to fixing the problem. Rationalizing your actions with some broad generalization that all authoritative institutions want to enslave you and having no evidence to back that up is not going to get anything accomplished.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Well, I can't say I share your generalized confrontational view of justice systems - their rules were formed through social contract, not some tyrant - at least in democratic nations. We all created a justice system for the very real purposes of upholding freedom, so if you can somehow prove that a certain part of the system is subverting that goal or it is inconsistent with that goal by design, then it can be brought to light and changed. I don't see how breaking the rules demonstrates that the rules are unfair, unless you were doing something completely within your individual rights in the first place. The best way to ethically protest would be to refuse the oath and then bring any provable ethical violations by the system to proper attentions so that they may be remedied. That way no one's rights are compromised by you in any way, and there is still a route to fixing the problem. Rationalizing your actions with some broad generalization that all authoritative institutions want to enslave you and having no evidence to back that up is not going to get anything accomplished.

It doesn't matter if it's a supposed "democracy", communist state, monarchy or dictatorship. The many are still ruled by the few. No different than your average tyrranical kingdom of the middle ages.

These supposedly "free" and "democratic" states are only more insidious than the more overt violent oppression back then. The powerful makes you think that you have "elected" them to their seat of office and that they are there to serve your interests (which is of course an illusion used to justify self-perpetuation as always).

When I see a society where everyone is truly equal, I'll have proof that it is a free society. But such a society doesn't exist, so trying to create distinctions between a supposed democracy or a dictatorship is just splitting hairs. The few still strive towards and try to maintain power over the many...

 

[TWRule]

It doesn't matter if it's a supposed "democracy", communist state, monarchy or dictatorship. The many are still ruled by the few. No different than your average tyrranical kingdom of the middle ages.

These supposedly "free" and "democratic" states are only more insidious than the more overt violent oppression back then. The powerful makes you think that you have "elected" them to their seat of office and that they are there to serve your interests (which is of course an illusion used to justify self-perpetuation as always).

When I see a society where everyone is truly equal, I'll have proof that it is a free society. But such a society doesn't exist, so trying to create distinctions between a supposed democracy or a dictatorship is just splitting hairs. The few still strive towards and try to maintain power over the many...

You must realize that you're really begging the question here. I'm not going to ask you to lay out your evidence for why we are all being exploited by a handful of tyrants because we'd just be derailing the thread. Still - even if that were somehow the case, I think your proposed action would do nothing but deprive the innocent of more rights while putting on a meaningless spectacle. I don't think I'm going to convince you of my way of seeing things since it's obvious we have very different world-views though, so I'm willing to agree to disagree.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Still - even if that were somehow the case, I think your proposed action would do nothing but deprive the innocent of more rights while putting on a meaningless spectacle.

How so?

Do you mean that the institution would try to use my resistance and rulebreaking as an excuse to further infringe on the rights of free people? (it seems to be what you are hinting at)

And if so, what does that tell you about these supposed "guardians of freedom" if they are so willing to jump at any opportunity to infringe even more on the freedom of everyone?

Honestly, if these "elected officials" had any sort of good faith that we are capable of making our own decisions, then why are they always so eager to get us to "elect them"?

"Im confident that you are a perectly capable and free individual who is capable of making his/her own choices, but could you please hand over as much authority to me as possible so I can make your decisions for you?"

Honestly, does that add up according to you? Don't you think it would be more healthy to meet a person with such ambitions with a bit more skepticism?

What is it that the religious people like to say: "The biggest con that the devil ever pulled was convincing man that he didn't exist."

It's somewhat the same thing here. The system is trying to maintain it's self-perpetuation, and you are very much a part of it since the only conclusion you reach is that if I don't follow the system, and the system then proceeds to infringe further on the freedom of everyone then it is MY FAULT that it happened. Like a good, obedient little citizen you treat the system as an irreplacable and infallible absolute. If it does something to the detriment of all, then the system is only doing it "out of necessity" and never with malicious intent. The system is never wrong, only individuals going against it are wrong.

This is what all citizens in democratic societies are taught. The question is if one actually dares to question the dogma or not.

So are you seriously going to keep insisting that im "responsible" for what the system does to others because I never chose to play it's games in the first place? (honestly, I was just born into this society, I never had any choice in the matter, nor did I have any choice in how the laws were supposed to look like)

 

[Bernzz]

I voted yes. But only in a very specific circumstance...

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.

...which is this, basically.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I'm swearing on a bible. I would tell the truth, even if it hurt.

 

[Helmutye]

I would not. Those who know me might find this strange, as I tend to be a very 'fight the power!' sort of guy who scorns the tools and institutions of The Man. But there are two reasons why, if I were able to live up to the standards I try to set for myself, I would not lie. Firstly, the justice system relies on people being honest and telling the truth. If you don't tell the truth, the justice system doesn't work, and there is no Justice. Justice is in short supply in the world today, and I do not want to contribute to the problem. I want to contribute to the solution. And countless stories and fables can't be wrong: the Truth shall set you free. A lie will only cause more problems, and spread the problem further, like itching a rash. I would not necessarily fault a family member for killing someone--sometimes, a person has to do what they have to do. In my eyes, they would still be family. I would visit them and support them, testify for their parole, and anything else I could think of. But no real family member would ask another to put their own life on the line to protect them. If they decide that killing someone is the only solution, then they must also be prepared to face the consequences--only a coward kills someone and then tries to hide from the consequences.

Secondly, it is a matter of personal pride and, yes, honor. It is certainly possible to manipulate the justice system. You can go far in this world by lying and cheating, getting a good job and earning promotions. Liars will probably make more money than me in their lives. But it is also possible to steal candy from a child. It is possible to beat up an old person, take all the money they have stashed in their house, and then burn the place to the ground, making them watch all their memories and treasures burn before their eyes. But why would you want to do that? Who do you think that impresses? You will be dead soon enough, no matter how much money and power you accumulate, and all that will be left is what you have done for the world. Do you want to leave the world a better place than you found it, or a worse place? As the saying goes: "A man has but one judge, and that judge is himself." I would not fault a person who decided that lying was the right thing for them to do in certain cases. But you have to decide for yourself whether it is right--don't focus on the consequences others will impose on you. You can always get away from other people if they think badly of you, but you can never get away from yourself.

 

[Omikron009]

I can't imagine a (realistic) situation in which I would lie. I like to tell the truth when it counts, and I also have an aversion to breaking the law (something most people my age don't seem to understand).

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. I believe in justice and justice requires honesty. *puts on lawful good cape* The people must always be true and pure and never deceive the courts for only then may justice prevail and shed light upon the darkness of man's soul! AWAY! *flies away*

 

[Omega Pirate]

if i was in a gang naturally i would lie all the way, or if it was a family member, actually i dont think i wouldn't lie unless its under some extreme circumstance, and that surprises me i thought i was a rather law abiding citizen.

Law Abiding Citizens are the most dangerous ones.

OT: I would not lie unless someone dies by telling the truth.

 

[ZephrC]

I would try not to. Aside from the fact that there are severe repercussions on the off chance that you get caught, it is my firm belief that there are two things to keep in mind when trying to deceive someone that most people just don't understand. The first is that selectively feeding a person just the right bits of truth is almost always far more effective than outright lying.

That being said though, I certainly would lie under oath if I was convinced that the odds of being caught were low enough and I was fairly sure that it would make a reasonable difference toward me accomplishing whatever goal I had while on the stand. So yes, given the right circumstance I would lie.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I don't need to lie, I have the 5th amendment.

 

[TWRule]

How so?

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I never implied that the system was flawless. It's created under social contract. It is created and shaped democratically for the unified purpose of justice/protecting freedom. If the system is inconsistent with the ideals of the social contract it was created under, it is unethical in that way, and should be adjusted. However, adjusting the system from the outside and acting within it after different.

For example, let's say you are serving on the jury and disagree with the definition of a crime as interpreted by the court. By that definition, the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you going to then vote not guilty, simply because you don't think the crime should be defined as it is? You could, but you'd be breaking your obligations as a juror. In that sense, it is unethical. If everyone voted differently for irrelevant reasons, the integrity of the entire system is jeopardized, and every citizen's right to a fair trial is indirectly infringed upon. The proper means of handling this situation would be to do your duty as a juror, but then allow the appeals court to serve it's purpose while lobbying yourself to get the letter of the law changed.

The same would be the case for your proposed obstruction of justice. Unless you would somehow be directly violating basic human freedoms by continuing with your oath, following through is the more ethical thing to do assuming you've already taken it. Then find a way to change the system through legislative channels.

So are you seriously going to keep insisting that im "responsible" for what the system does to others because I never chose to play it's games in the first place? (honestly, I was just born into this society, I never had any choice in the matter, nor did I have any choice in how the laws were supposed to look like)

No, you are not responsible for the actions of others: you are responsible for your own actions, and so is each legal representative making up the system (responsible for their own actions). It could be said that as a citizen of your nation, you have some amount of responsibility in bringing inconsistencies you perceive within the legal system to light, but merely breaking your oath is not an effective way of doing it.

And it's true that you didn't have a choice of where you were born, but as a democratic citizen, you do have a choice in how the laws are shaped - through your elected representatives. I don't mean to imply that democracy is perfect by any means, and perhaps someday we'll move on to a more perfect form of government - but as long as we continue living in such a nation, we are bound by social contract. Our choice is to use the power we have to try and change things for the better, accept things the way they are, or remove ourselves from the contract (by moving, preferably).

 

[Kwaren]

I would lie to save myself.

 

[WrongSprite]

Yeah, 'course. If I needed to of course, I wouldn't just do it for the lulz.

 

[lettucethesallad]

No. I'm a shit liar, and I also believe in being objective. If someone did something wrong, they should be punished, no matter my relation to the person in question.

 

[wulfy42]

It depends on if I feel the only way for justice to be served is if I lie. If a loved one of mine was raped by someone and I KNEW they did it....but there was not enough evidence to convict them unless I lied.....I would lie to make sure he went to jail for instance. If I got caught it would be worth it.

For the most part though I would not lie on the stand. Not because I'm afraid of the consequences or have faith in our justice system, but because I don't feel like my opinion on a case or subject should be what ultimately decides someone's fate. I don't think our legal system works that well much of the time, but it is usually better then having one person who may be biased make a decision and convict someone with lies.

Even if it was someone I loved I would try and only tell the truth, although I might not tell all of it, or might refuse to answer specific questions. If it was someone I loved that was hurt......that would be a different story.

 

[tigermilk]

If I was subject to witness intimidation yes I would, I have my doubts that many people really would stand up to the threats (despite what 58.3% of people think).

If I believed the legal system to be flawed (which it is) and I thought lying could right a wrong and that I could get away with it I would.

If my personal interest outweighed my desire to tell the truth and I thought I could get away with it I would.