lying in general or lying under oath?
I do not condemn lying in any way as some kind of 'sin' because it is a natural thing people do in general for various reason.
however when put under oath the act takes another turn for the worse it seems because one has to swear ahead of their speech.
how does one know one will not forget or make a mistake after being sworn?
would a small error such as forgetting, which canhappen when under pressure, be taken as lying hence persecuted for it is illogical and deemed a failure hence unjust. Is the law making itself look silly or is it the act of oath that is dated and archaic and needs to go?
The other way around if in doubt is the right to remain silent which seems the only sensible to do in order to avoid persecution.
One or the other but I see if a witness refuses to speak because it is their right to remain silent is perfectly justified and therefore in their interest to do so because the law allows so.