[no links in this story] If God Commanded one to not bear false witness against one's neighbors, is it possible that while one person might be punished for that which he or she did not do, that those who falsely accused such person are true vestiges of evil?
Would the same reasoning apply to jurors who did not take seriously their oath to only convict if they believed "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant was guilty, but despite having a reasonable doubt or two, they voted to convict the defendant due to believing it was more likely than not that the defendant was guilty?
In actuality, perjury probably occurs more often than not in court. Hardly anyone tells the absolute truth about an event. They always slant the facts to fit whatever viewpoint of the event they favor.
Often, they may not even be aware that they are doing so, or that when they actually viewed the event, they were seeing things as they wanted them to appear, not as they actually appeared. I am a firm believer in the tenet that "Truth is relevant to perception."
However, I am of the belief that it is a rare occurrence when someone does not know when he or she is stretching the truth. This rampant perjury is not confined to lay witnesses. It is more prevalent in the ranks of testifying police officers. It is almost like police officers get personally affronted when someone chooses to plead not guilty to a charge. "Oh, so you are saying I didn't do my job right, huh? Well, just let me tell this jury just how perfect I was and how bad you really were."
Is all this rampant perjury and disregard of oaths such a big deal? To wrongfully convicted persons, it is. Is it all that important to God? I guess the answer to that will await Judgment Day.
Posted by Tiger at May 27, 2003 05:09 PM | TrackBack