which is worse?

[cacian]

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.


Discuss.

[loe]

I think it only depends on the subject/purpose of the lie and not on an oath.

I can swear an oath that I haven't seen a beggar stealing bread.
I can say beyond any oath that I didn't see the man who murdered my neighbour.

I would say that the lie in the second case is definitely worse.

(Both examples are absolutely hypothetical btw. ;-) )

[cacian]

I think it only depends on the subject/purpose of the lie and not on an oath.

I can swear an oath that I haven't seen a beggar stealing bread.
I can say beyond any oath that I didn't see the man who murdered my neighbour.

I would say that the lie in the second case is definitely worse.

(Both examples are absolutely hypothetical btw. ;-) )

Hi loe thank you for your post.
I am thinking that the two cases you gave are both very valid in that if let's say that the law says that
stealing bread and murder are both classified as crime then lying under oath about either of them must receive the same ''punishement''.
It is not about who did what it is about the fact they are both classified as crimes and therefore because of their titles which are exactly the same are to be taken/considered in the exact same way.

[Patrick_Bateman]

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.


Discuss.

I feel that the taking of an oath in itself is a lie.
Not many people - in my opinion - would feel as if they were undergoing an ethical crisis if they had sworn an oath on the Bible and were, in order for their friend or even themself to escape punishment, forced to lie in answer to a question.

I don't think an oath in court holds much symbollic or moral value these days and that personal loyalties and self-preservation are far more important than what is right or virtuous.

I don't find lying under oath to be worse than just lying in any other situation. The whole idea of swearing an oath is a social and political construct which has no bearing on anyone's behaviour. I don't find lying under oath to be anymore reprehensible than the act of lying (for the wrong reasons) in any other circumstance; it does not add to the severity of telling a lie.

[cacian]

I feel that the taking of an oath in itself is a lie.
Not many people - in my opinion - would feel as if they were undergoing an ethical crisis if they had sworn an oath on the Bible and were, in order for their friend or even themself to escape punishment, forced to lie in answer to a question.

I don't think an oath in court holds much symbollic or moral value these days and that personal loyalties and self-preservation are far more important than what is right or virtuous.

I don't find lying under oath to be worse than just lying in any other situation. The whole idea of swearing an oath is a social and political construct which has no bearing on anyone's behaviour. I don't find lying under oath to be anymore reprehensible than the act of lying (for the wrong reasons) in any other circumstance; it does not add to the severity of telling a lie.
I agree as it was explained to me that it is used as a tool to censor or punish the said testimonee.
To swear under oath works in favour of court in case the witness lies.
It is not about morals or religions or the sacrilege of the oath, it is about the act of being caught lying under it.
Without the oath bit the court cannot make the act of lying a crime during testimonee.
The other side of the coin is that if you took religion out of society the court is literally bust in terms of its heavy reliance on witnesses and testimonies. Hence the make up of the bible/oath. In my opinion it is a cheap scapegoat the court uses and so this jeorpardise the position of the defense evertime because is always at risk of being sued under tempering with the law albeit not intentional.
So I recomment the right to remain silent as your only defense.
An example of what I mean is this
playing hide and chase
if you provide a person with an empty space and ask them to run then it is most difficult ifnot impossible for you to catch them because they cam outrun you faster then you could.
but if you provide them with obstacles and ask them to run then the instinct of the runner is to use the obstacles as hiding places and then it is much easier for you to find them.

so the ''under oath'' is just like a cover for the law to catch the testimonee/witness in case they decide to run (lying in this case).

[Revolte]

I feel that the taking of an oath in itself is a lie.
Not many people - in my opinion - would feel as if they were undergoing an ethical crisis if they had sworn an oath on the Bible and were, in order for their friend or even themself to escape punishment, forced to lie in answer to a question.

I don't think an oath in court holds much symbollic or moral value these days and that personal loyalties and self-preservation are far more important than what is right or virtuous.



This.

Plus it's a sort of archaic coercion. I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust a man who is terrified of the writings in the book. And it's a real strange use of coercion too isn't it? Someone hands you a bible and tells you to be saved lalalala there are glorious things to come lalalal all of that kind of stuff, then they turn around and use it at a weapon in court.


Lying has its place. We learn it as babies and not everyone needs to know everything.

I think it's just circumstantial. Big crimes lie rape, murder and torture shouldn't be lied about if you can stop it from continuing. But other then that, have at it.

But lying is a tool best used with pre-thought. I wouldn't recommend lying to your lover, just don't do stupid stuff and if you do oh well you lost out. We've all been there anyway no reason to act like you're the only one.

[cacian]

This.

Plus it's a sort of archaic coercion. I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust a man who is terrified of the writings in the book. And it's a real strange use of coercion too isn't it? Someone hands you a bible and tells you to be saved lalalala there are glorious things to come lalalal all of that kind of stuff, then they turn around and use it at a weapon in court.


Lying has it's place. We learn it as babies and not everyone needs to know everything.

I think it's just circumstantial. Big crimes lie rape, murder and torture shouldn't be lied about if you can stop it from continuing. But other then that, have at i?!
Just a thought.

But lying is a tool best used with pre-thought. I wouldn't recommend lying to your lover, just don't do stupid stuff and if you do oh well you lost out. We've all been there anyway no reason to act like you're the only one.

Haha great read and anyway let's face lying is more natural then swearing under oath.
I feel sorry for the book being held and lied upon so many times over isn't it time someone took pity on it and liberated it.
And oh yes I agree noone needs to know anything about any body if they did not want to...live and let live or so they say.