Trivia S5: S2
As the sole eyewitness to a brutal assault, you shock the courtroom by stating: "I clearly saw everything that night, but I absolutely refuse to identify who did it." The judge rules your entire testimony inadmissible due to its partial nature, resulting in the defendant's acquittal. Three months later, you come forward with a bombshell confession - you had lied under oath about seeing the crime at all. Now the original suspect is suing for wrongful prosecution, the victim's family demands justice, and the DA wants to charge you with perjury.
Debate: Is withholding part of the truth equivalent to lying under oath? Should you be punished more for the original lie or the subsequent confession? Does justice require revealing why you lied?
Withholding part of the truth is equivalent to lying under oath. He should be punished for the original lie. And yes justice requires revealing the reason for lying #1keachday
ReplyDeleteI am of the opinion that withholding part of the truth under oath is also lying. I should be punished for the subsequent confession and also tell why I lied for justice to be served #1keachday
ReplyDeleteIt would be lying to withhold part of the truth under oath. I should be punished for the original lie as it is the cause of the issue and yes, justice requires revealing the reason I lied #1keachday
ReplyDeleteYes, withholding part of the truth is equivalent to lying under oath and I may face charges for both the initial lie and subsequent confession so I should be held accountable for the consequences of my actions.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is lying if I withhold part of the truth under oath and I would be liable for the original lie. Yes, justice requires revealing why I lied
ReplyDelete