Liars in Court
Every profession has trained, certified members that should not be allowed in that profession,
because they will always use their position to damage others. That's who they are.
In fact, many people seek a profession that allows them to abuse others.
Lying to someone or lying about them is the easiest way to harm others.
And some people just love to harm others.
Being lied to...discourages people and makes them withdraw.
So many people are lied to in the course of 'justice', in various degrees, by different players.
This piece is about false statements/accusations and judicial neglect in the courtroom, whether it be from:* Defendants, claiming they had no hand in the crime. Suspects that lie - further harm the people they harmed in the original crime. (This doesn't mean that one can't protest the type of charges filed against them. Some charges are inappropriate to the crime).
* Defendants' Families, who insist their suspected relative is innocent.
They interfere in investigations and even thwart valid confessions - to avoid family shame.
The suspect's children also can fail at this. It is so tough - on even adult children
when a parent is accused of a crime, especially when the victim is the other parent.
* Prosecutors who use unsustainable information from jailhouse snitches
to bolster an otherwise un-win-able case. Or prosecutors that engage in malicious prosecution to harm adversaries, be they politicians or minorities.
*Law enforcement officials that plant evidence or give false testimony.
My neighbor-county, in 2006, had an engineered, wrongful conviction
because a crooked CSI investigator planted evidence.
This behavior caused the murder conviction of two innocent men.
That CSI agent must have wanted the glory for the arrest.
He went to prison. Good.
I'm concerned that it's legal for police to lie during criminal investigations.
And it's wrong to conduct isolated interrogations of minors and the mentally sub-sufficient.
It's a terrible thing - when innocent people can't feel safe around law enforcement.
because of the lies police will tell to try to get a confession. One can't feel safe around a liar.
*Judges allowing or disallowing evidence or testimony that hurt the innocent or help the guilty,
(this includes refusing to hearing cases, according to the wishes of political leaders).
(this includes refusing to hearing cases, according to the wishes of political leaders).
This is avoiding truth, which is the whole purpose of the trial.
Aren't judges also supposed to submit to 'the whole truth' principle?
And look at the disparity in decisions from judge to judge.
This seems to violate the principle of judicial continuity inferred by 'due process'.
September 2024: I just watched a crime show where the jury refused to convict someone that seemed obviously guilty. Later, the jurors said they could not convict on the evidence that the prosecution was allowed to present. 'The whole truth...' ???
*Defense lawyers that lie to juries.
- Some lawyers use 'malicious defense', accusing other people of the crime to create
reasonable doubt for their clients. They slander others to try to free their own clients.
They accuse victims, who sometimes are themselves soiled, but not always.
- defense lawyers that introduce 'mitigating factors' into the sentencing-phase of the trial,
when they earlier claimed that their client was innocent. The guilty should have to
claim-the-crime before they are allowed to plead 'mitigating factors' at sentencing.
When a defense lawyer offers mitigating circumstances for an offence after a conviction.
The Judge should ask:
"So, in pleading mitigating circumstances to this offense, the defendant admits to the crime
and is excluded from appealing a wrongful conviction, eh?"
- I become quite agitated when normally-active older defendants appear in court with walkers or in wheelchairs. And when young defendants who normally dress scruffily - appear in court wearing suits or in hair ribbons. This is so insulting. Courtroom costuming is a form of deceit.
-defense lawyers also do a lot of victim-bashing. When inaccurate, this is inexcusable.
That both prosecutors and defense attorneys have the right to 'preemptory challenge';
denying a juror without having to state a reason. I think this maneuver should be called 'preemptory prejudice'. Hunches should not stop the seating of a juror, since real justice is fueled by verifiable facts, not by phantom hunches.
*Wives who accuse husbands of abuse toward themselves or the children - to get a favorable ruling in divorce or custody matters, or even when they are on trial for killing their husbands.
* Husbands on trial for murder who claim the wife were depressed just before her death
and that the wives committed suicide. If I had my way, A coroner would need a Grand Jury's permission to declare a death to be a suicide. With the victim's DNA-relatives called to testify. This would even mean more scrutiny. And tissue and fluid samples be retained for 10 years.
*Juries: Some jurors can be bought or threatened - or go into a trial with a mesireh-mentality.
*********************************************************************************************
*Polygraph tests. Just kidding. Polygraph tests are generally not allowed in court
for these tests are not even 90% accurate, and a 10% false-conviction rate is unacceptable.
A 10% false conviction rate means that 10% of cases are closed with the wrong person in prison and the true perp not being looked for - on the loose, able to repeat those crimes.
A suspect does no one any favors by taking a polygraph test.
I have seen video samples of suspects receiving polygraph tests administered by police.
Some of the polygraph test administrators were horribly bully-ish to the people wired-in.
If polygraph tests were 100% accurate, and done correctly, the test administrator would use never use his tone of voice to intimidate the person taking the test. Such emotion shows a blatant attempt to manipulate the outcome of the test.
9-21-24:
I just watch an episode of a crime show, where a suspect cleared a polygraph test,
yet the police still wanted to believe he was part of his wife's murder.
So, there you go. Even police don't always believe polygraph tests.
1-17-25
A news flash on my internet just brought this piece:
mynorthwest.com/jason-rantz/rantz-newly-announced-seattle-police-chief-shon-barnes-failed-polygraph-exam-per-police-source/4029642
LIARS IN COURT
"Just answer 'Yes' or 'No'
Another shortcoming I see in US courts is when either prosecutors or defense attorneys demand that their narrowly focused question to a witness - be answered with a 'Yes' or 'No'.
Witnesses are made to swear to tell 'the whole truth'.
Often times the whole truth can't be told with a 'Yes' or 'No'.
How many millions of hours have prosecutors or defense attorneys spent poring over
the US Constitution and legal statues, looking for a paragraph that would drive home a point?
But they limit people that saw the actual crime - to a one-word answer?
Baloney.
How is that not evil, when there is more to be told - that a jury needs to hear?
Of what use, of what good are great libraries of ponderous legal books,
if a simple 'Yes' or 'No is ample to establish a truth?
True witnesses know more about the events than either prosecutors or defense attorneys.
Court officers intentionally cheat us citizens out of real justice by demanding
a 'Yes' or No' answer to a very narrowly-focused question. This is terrible.
This is another form of lying.
Lawyers might they say they use such questions to make the trial more efficient.
I disagree.
If they truly cared abound the speed of justice, there wouldn't be all the delays and rescheduling we see in court proceedings.
And I've seen murder trials for poor defendants take 5 days,
while rich OJ Simpson's trial, took 8 months.
It is such hypocrisy to demand a one-word answer from a witness.
It violates 'the whole truth' fuel that is supposed to propel our judicial system.
Biblical guidelines for justice.
Though I believe the New Testament is our current contract with God,
let me share Old Testament requirements for honesty.
"15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may
have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
accordingly...
US Constitution: Article 3, Section 3:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or Confession in open Court..."
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or Confession in open Court..."
So, two witness is a big deal. Back to Deuteronomy 19:
******************* False Witnesses*******************************************
16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime,
17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord
before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time.
18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar,
giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite,
19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party.
You must purge the evil from among you.
20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid,
and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.
21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
(Note: In modern times, I consider DNA and GSR evidence, video and cell phone records
and other verifiable scientific data as 'witnesses'.) But not polygraph tests.
Revelation 21: (New Testament)
"6 He (Jesus) said to me (John): “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost
from the spring of the water of life.
7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this,
and I will be their God and they will be my children.
8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral,
those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—
they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
This is the second death.”
I believe, though neither Jesus nor the Apostles directly addressed this in the New Testament,
that when one person falsely accuses another person of a crime, and never confesses and repents, the punishment is transferred to that false accuser in eternity...
*********************************************************************************************
Numbers 23:19 (Old Testament)
“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"
You see, God cares for people, but He hates - hates - hates lies.
What draws people to the judicial systemas professionals?
We know many people are drawn into the medical professional because of family illness.
Likewise, many are drawn into the judicial profession because...
...their families were victims of crime, and they want to make the world a safer place,
or... because older relatives were wicked and the younger onea desperately want to prove that the judicial system is rigged, so they can think better of a convicted relative.
I'm sure that many defense lawyers have this kind of background.
Another type of person drawn into the judicial orbit are mental health professionals
who testify about certain matters in court.
Some percent of them were themselves raised by mentally-ill or evil people.
Too often, the children of mentally ill people enter psychology and psychiatric studies
trying to understand the very bad behavior of their relatives,
looking for organic reasons to explain the horrible childhoods they had to endure.
And on the witness stand, I suspect mental illness is regularly pleaded, instead of evil,
even when a diagnosis of personal evil is more appropriate.
Is evil even recognized as a cause of bad behavior in the DSM-5 ?
Honore Daumier
Mitigating circumstances
Another point on mitigating circumstances ...
When a defendant has been convicted of a crime,
then pleads past sexual abuse as a mitigating circumstance,
the court should verify that the defendant has named their abuser
and proper investigations were made into these matters,
for two reasons:
1) First, to make sure this is not a ruse to deflect justice.
2) To use this as an opportunity to pursue a sexual abuser that has gotten away.
This escape allows the abuser to continue to hunt for - and prey on other victims.
