Re: Prosecutor seeks perjury evidence (in Dover case)


rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> catshark wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 04:25:26 +0000 (UTC), bdbryant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bobby
> > D. Bryant) wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Bobby D. Bryant schreef:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Victor.Purinton@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > I hope they don't bring charges - I hear a "Not guilty by reason of
> > >>> > mental incompetence."
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Besides, humiliation heard 'round the world is enough for me.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have mixed feelings about it. By an abstract sense of justice they
> > >>> should reap what they've sown for themselves, and at a more pragmatic
> > >>> level it might be good to send a signal that the public isn't going
> > >>> to tolerate this sort of behavior among public policy makers.[*]
> > >>
> > >> If Joe Sixpack lied in a courtroom, would he be prosecuted?
> > >
> > >Supposedly people lie every day in divorce proceedings, and almost
> > >none of them get prosecuted.
> >
> > There probably aren't enough jails in the world to hold the output of one
> > week's perjurers in civil cases.
>
> Given most jails are overfull, that's true, but perhaps not so if they
> let out the people who are in now.

Don't bet on it.

>In any case, they could build more.
>
> I suppose we're missing a point about perjury.

Actually, I was rather making just this point.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury essentially bears out that it's no
> more or less than lying when legally obliged to tell the truth,
> including under oath, under affirmation, and, in the U.S., doing your
> taxes. I suppose the jails are not full of perjurers because
> prosecution is deemed not in the public interest, either because it's
> difficult to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" or because a reasonable
> sentence is not worth obtaining.

If everyone is in the hoosgow, who is going to take care of the public
interest? Perjury is not any easy charge to prove ("intent" is more
important than in many crimes and intent can be hard to prove) but the
main reason is too many resources would be chasing after an offense
that does not have consequences sufficient to warrant the expenditure.

> For instance: if the commiter of a
> crime lies about it and still goes to jail then a sentence for perjury
> would perhaps be less than the sentence he already got - in many
> jurisdictions you get hit harder anyway for pleading Not Guilty, which
> looks like the first lie if you actually are guilty -

But that is a sanctioned lie that no one can be prosecuted for.

> and if he lies
> and gets off then it's because there isn't enough evidence to prove
> that he lied. Exceptions will be rare. And I'm not sure how perjury
> and double jeopardy rules work.

If you are aquitted because of (or in spite of) perjury, you can be
prosecuted for perjury, as that was a separate crime.

>
> I gather you have to be unusually delinquent in a civil court to go to
> jail for it, and some fibbing is probably tolerated, and, again, more
> or less paid for if you lose the case - which you probably will do if
> it can be proved that you fibbed about something important.

The demarcation usually resides in the message the prosecutor wants to
send. Martha Stewart got prosecuted *because* she was famous *and* a
small fish as stock manipulations are concerned. They wanted to let
the relatively small investors know that they might not get away with
it. The ex-board members here has a similar problem. The prosecutor
might decide to send a message to local, part-time government officials
that truthfulness in governmental proceedings is a good idea.

> The Dover Cre^WDesignists may indeed be an exception if they've lied
> and got off with no personal penalty.
>
> The Wikipedia page provides a list of "famous perjurers"; it's very
> short. Shouldn't there be some Enron names on the list, or haven't we
> got that far yet? I don't have a dog in that fight.

It's a way to go for that yet. The case of Ken Lay, et al. was just
pushed back to the end of January, I believe.

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------


Lawyers are like other people -- fools on the average;
but it is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other.


-- Mark Twain --

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: impeachment
    ... No, sex is, to a certain extent, a part of the issue. ... find something, anything, to hold against Clinton. ... Under numerous state laws of perjury, ... lie about it today. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Thinking of you, freaks
    ... Glad to see you've dropped the perjury claim - taken some advice from ... I'm sure laughing at you, but didn't lie to anyone, including you. ... dickless freak: ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • Re: OT: Political
    ... >be "perjury" because it doesn't describe an intentional lie. ... >I think this man is being very careful only to indict where there is ... I'm impressed with the Prosecutor too but you're putting the cart ... Mike Corbett ...
    (rec.arts.dance)
  • Re: OT Asshole sighting
    ... It was WRONG to openly lie to the people, ... It's unclear you understand that it's about perjury as well. ... it's not about the blowjob, then don't bring it up with no reference to ... much more benign than ones which harm lots of people (like ones which lead ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: Prosecutor seeks perjury evidence (in Dover case)
    ... >>>I think they ought to try them for perjury. ... >>I was initially of the opinion of letting sleeping dogs lie, ... and I do think it will send a message to other public officials ... > They lied ABOUT their religion. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading