Talk:Perjury

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)

• • • • It seems to me that the seriousness of a crime is reflected -- objectively -- in the level of punishment that is given for the offense. Thus, perjury is indeed a potentially very serious crime as some punishments approach those for violent assaults. I think the original phrasing can be salvaged if the focus is on the gravity of the punishment. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"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)

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

Fair point (http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/) - given that this is a law article, it should be accurate, so I'm amending that entry to read "conspiracy to commit". 91.84.120.88 (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Is this perjury

See the answer to your question at Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.201.208 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 June 2007

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdw1958 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 August 2007

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)

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

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)

Actually, the text here is correct. In Germany, a normal witness can be heard under oath, but SUSPECTS cannot. You can find the text of the German law here: [2] 93.128.19.246 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ancient views of perjury

In the Laws of Manu, an ancient Sanskrit text, false evidence is considered a ground for reversing a judgment, and whatever has been done is to be considered as undone. False evidence is seen as arising from possible motives of covetousness, distraction, terror, friendship, lust, wrath, ignorance, and/or childishness. It is not clear whether this list is intended to be exhaustive. Various fines are prescribed if perjury is committed, depending upon what the motive is rather than the effect on the case, as well as banishment, unless the witness is of the highest "Brahmana" caste in which case, no fine is prescribed as a penalty. This is evident from Chapter VIII, verses 117 - 123 of the George Buhler translation in the Sacred Books of the East series edited by Max Muller.

There would be difficulties implementing this in the legal systems of English speaking countries because the criminal law shies away from making findings about motive, perhaps because it is so difficult sometimes to discern, and motives may be mixed. It is also hard in practice sometimes to distinguish giving false evidence from perjury. Moreover, banishment is no longer used as a punishment, and there is no open acknowledgement of different castes in society as there were in ancient India. We are all presumed to be equal before the law, although the credibility of our testimonies might not be considered of equal weight. But the text does enunciate what might be perceived as possible motives for giving false evidence, whether this amounts to perjury or not. Another difficulty might be that what has been done, may not always, necessarily be undone, because the judgment may have already been irreversibly enforced, even if perjury is brought to light beyond reasonable doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.93.244 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Jocular use

• I once read a book that mentioned a parrot "committing perjury" by imitating the sound of a refrigerator door being opened, thus getting the dog punished for suspected refrigerator raiding. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

United States

This section of the article is exceedingly difficult to read because it is just a wall of text. I will be marking it as such, but if anyone has good ideas on how we can split this section up a bit, that would be awesome. Right now I'm at work, so I don't have the time to do it myself. Zell Faze (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok done. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 04:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Perjury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022034642/http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1810012/ to http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1810012/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)