Talk:Perjury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been assessed as top-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Change in opening paragraph

Why I changed this:

It is seen as a very serious crime as it seeks to usurp the authority of the courts, because it can lead to miscarriages of justice.

To this:

In some cases it results in miscarriages of justice.

First, "it is seen as a very serious crime" is just a sneaky way of incorporating someone's POV - it still presents an opinion. Serious compared to murder? Common assault? How can you judge?

Second "it seeks to usurp the authority of the courts." This is also an opinion, since no one knows everyone's reasons for lying. Some may lie because they fear false conviction, or because they mistrust the legal establishment - not necessarily an intent to usurp authority. Besides, just to give my own POV here on the talk page, I think "usurp" is hyperbolic and "authority" is questionable - judges have power, not authority, and only perceive themselves to have any authority due to myths such as "social contract" and "democracy."

So I just left the information: it sometimes results in miscarriages of justice. The seriousness, or what the person is seeking, let readers make their own judgements.24.64.223.203 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. Yes, it's incorporating the societal norm POV, which is an entirely reasonable thing to incorporate provided it isn't misinterpretable as being any more than that. Which IMO it wasn't. (How can you judge the societal norm on this point? Try looking at the criminal penalties for perjury, for a start.)
  2. `seeks' is a terrible choice of word, but it just needs replacing with something sensible. There's no reason to take out the whole sentence for it.
Incidentally thank you for having the forethought to give an explanation for your edit. —Blotwell 11:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The societal norm point of view? The penalty has nothing to do with societal norms. It has to do with legal norms, which come down to the power of the legal establishment, not the power of the people (though the legal establishment loves to pretend it's "following" the will of the people). I would think that most people would consider it serious when it does lead to miscarriages of justice, but desirable when it protects people from legal bullying. In any event, "it is seen as a very serious crime" is constructed from weasel words (Generalization Using Weasel Words). How about "judges tend to consider it to be serious" or something like that?24.64.223.203 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "considered a very serious crime"

I'm thinking of changing this to "the penalties indicate that it is considered a very serious crime". which would be supported by the next sentence. i'll think about the best way to word it, and add it. -Indalcecio 21:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Stewart not convicted of perjury

Martha Stewart was convicted of conspiracy, making false statements, and obstruction of justice, not perjury. Lying to investigators and lying on the stand are two separate offenses.

74.66.227.6 20:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Tonia Samman

[edit] Fictional examples

I removed the following

"*Vice President of the United States Noah Daniels was forced by President Wayne Palmer to resign from office after his Chief of Staff, Tom Lennox, recorded Daniels conspiring to commit purjury. This occured on the popular television program 24."

I don't think examples from fiction belong here, and if they do they should be in their own section. --Darksun 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this perjury

i was divorced on july 20th 2006. my x-wife was awarded the house. I signed a quick claims deed. per the divorce decree she was to pay the mortgage and make attempts to refinance the property. she called me about 6 weeks ago to tell me she and our 2 children were moving into an apartment. after i hung up i was kinda shocked and curious as to what was going to happen to the house. so i called the mortgage company to inquire. the mortgage company stated that the house was going into foreclosure if no payments are met. needless to say the house is now in foreclosure. I was served a motion of sanctions to appear on june 11th for a timely matter dealing with the quick claims deed. my question is this. line 3 of the Motion To Enforce Dissolution Decree And For Sanctions states that Petitioner(x-wife) has made all mortgage payments and has attempted to refinance the mortgage. if line 3 is true then why am i going to be served papers from the mortgage company on the grounds of foreclosure and does\'nt that mean that she has not made payments on the mortgage. also at the bottom of the signed page below the attorneys signature and information it states - I affirm under penalties for perjury that the foregoing representations are true and correct, as I verily believe. beneath that is x-wifes signature. is that perjury?????????
67.173.161.172 17:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See the answer to your question at Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.

[edit] Clinton's perjury

The information posted about Clinton's perjury is incorrect. The Senate did not clear him of perjury charges. They only voted not to remove him from office. Many of the voting Senators made this claim themselves, stating that Clinton would be subject to prosecution for the perjury charge after he left office.

And Clinton was going to be prosecuted for perjury when he left office. That's why he accepted a plea bargain from the federal prosecutor Robert Ray, where he admitted to perjury in exchange for the promise not to be prosecuted.

Since Clinton accepted a plea bargain in the same way as Mark Fuhrman did, they should both be listed as convicted of perjury.

No, that is incorrect. Clinton's resolution was not a plea bargain, it was a settlement. He was never charged. Fuhrman was.
And you're right about the wording, it was a little too vague. I hope I have changed it to make it more clear that the impeachment involved only removing him from office.Vordabois 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 27.4 Billion Dollars for Kwame Kilpatrick City of Detroit Settlement

Looking at the history, I am having trouble finding when that number came in. It is unsourced. On its face it is unreliable, and should be "undone." The 8-plus million dollars was the amount of the settlement paid to settle the whistleblower protection at case and keep the text messages secret. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

[edit] Perjury in Germany

The information that perjury is not possible in germany is wrong. A person that commits perjury in germany will go to prison at least for one year and up to 15 years. See [1] (it's in german). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.79.126.18 (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)