Ethics question:

[vraiblonde]

Let's make it a little stickier:

What if you were somewhere near where a horrible crime was committed, but didn't actually see the crime happen, although you saw enough that you are certain in your mind who committed that crime. You are called as a witness in the trial. The prosecution has an excellent case with strong evidence, and the defense attorney is Michael Avanatti, showboating and trying every slime bag trick in the book to get his client off. A lot hinges on your testimony.

Would you lie and say you saw something that you didn't actually see, but are positive did in fact happen, in order to slam dunk a conviction?

 

[This_person]

Let's make it a little stickier:

What if you were somewhere near where a horrible crime was committed, but didn't actually see the crime happen, although you saw enough that you are certain in your mind who committed that crime. You are called as a witness in the trial. The prosecution has an excellent case with strong evidence, and the defense attorney is Michael Avanatti, showboating and trying every slime bag trick in the book to get his client off. A lot hinges on your testimony.

Would you lie and say you saw something that you didn't actually see, but are positive did in fact happen, in order to slam dunk a conviction?

Same answer. The truth shall set you free.

 

[SamSpade]

Let's make it a little stickier:

The thing about testifying against, say, drug lords or mafia types is - I *might* be persuaded to lie, because I don't just know they're guilty - EVERYONE knows.
But the consequences - first - that my testimony wouldn't be the last of it or put them away - it's too big to consider.

I'd get caught. I would. I've testified in court, truthfully, and it made no difference. I'd get caught lying.
And if any political person told me, don't worry, we'll cover for you, you're right - they're lying.