ethical question: would you lie under oath if it was the only way to get justice?

Originally Posted by Jroo

are you really asking if you get justice if you lie to get it?

Ironic, eh?

Originally Posted by roastbeef

i would not lie. the truth is the truth and its the right thing to do; period.

straying from the guidelines of legalities to get a conviction and then covering it up with a lie is not obtaining justice. so you see, your title makes no sense.

so you're the only one with evidence to convict a murderer. The evidence is lost due to some reason (you're the only person who knew of it)... you get a chance to convict the guy without EVER being caught as a liar.... you wouldn't do it, and the murderer walks free? That's justice to you?

Originally Posted by VaderDave

I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation where this would work and not get tossed out on appeal. But I don't practice in this area of law so maybe someone can enlighten me.

I have no clue, honestly the situation wasn't meant to be taken realistically.

Originally Posted by SamDoe1

If you have to lie, is it truely justice?

If a guilty person gets found guilty, how is it not justice?

Originally Posted by mistrzmiasta

yo quiero taco bell.

I thought it'd be JJ who first posted some obtuse crap in Latin. I'm surprised it was actually busa.

Busa, Google's translation on this makes no more sense than me trying to interpret a jumble of letters- so please, do tell.

No. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree & Due process are very important to me.

What and Who's justice? Our system is simply and eye-for-an-eye...stealing because your a thief or stealing because you are starving to death literally?


You decide where to draw the line....I'm not getting near any of that kind of decision making.

Originally Posted by pancakes

so you're the only one with evidence to convict a murderer. The evidence is lost due to some reason (you're the only person who knew of it)... you get a chance to convict the guy without EVER being caught as a liar.... you wouldn't do it, and the murderer walks free? That's justice to you?

if the evidence is lost, etc., and mistakes were made not achieving a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, it ends there.

its not a question about justice being served, its a moral obligation to maintain and uphold the sovereignty and purity of a justice system, which is; telling the truth.

Sounds like OP has been watching "Sleepers"

Justice? What is justice? Justice is often times only moral when taken with the context of the law. Often times, laws themselves are not moral? The question is bit broad to offer one answer in response. It's a case by case basis for me.

Originally Posted by pancakes

so you're the only one with evidence to convict a murderer. The evidence is lost due to some reason (you're the only person who knew of it)... you get a chance to convict the guy without EVER being caught as a liar.... you wouldn't do it, and the murderer walks free? That's justice to you?

If the evidence that you only you had got lost and you had the chance to convict the person using your recollection of the lost evidence...that's not lying. Evidence is the truth.

Originally Posted by pancakes

If a guilty person gets found guilty, how is it not justice?

How do you know they are guilty? If you are lying to make them guilty or seem guilty, that's hardly justice. If you present facts, testimony, and evidence to their prove their guilt then that's not lying.

The basic question here is whether the means sometimes justify the ends, or if some actions are implicitly unethical....

if someone lies because it's the only way to get a killer behind bars, is that unethical?

also, what teh hell is sleeper?