Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for December 03, 2014

Ah! So, true!

“…and “the”, and “whole”, and…"

Not obfuscate the truth in order to win?!!! Act totally contrary to my nature?!!! Defeat the entire purpose of atrial….???

Have you ever watched the masterpiece of great dramatic acting called “Twelve Angry Men?” An alternative title might have been, “One Intelligent Man.”

Truth is a variable. Facts are predefined. You can control the Truth by careful access to the Facts.

I was going to add Politicians in general and the Tea Party GOp in Particular….but realised they don’t often bother being even remotely truthful…..

facts, Republicans don’t like facts, especially when they don’t say what Republicans want. America aka Idiocrcay. Best Facts money can buy.

Both sides lie! Until that is excepted….end rant.Older brother was in jury selection when the judge said it was up to the jury to decide which party told the truth the best. So he asked if that meant the jurors had to determine which party was lying….as you might guess he did not make the jury.

It would explain a lot given most politicians are lawyers.

You’re all looking at it wrong. This is not about “justice” in some grand sense; in the interest of avoiding the “whims of princes”, we insist on law, which means that disputes can become about the letter of the law (rather than any “spirit”, which would be a judgment call). This is a game, with arcane and subtle rules, and the lawyers are trying to win by those rules. If someone bluffs in a game of poker, you don’t call it “lying”, because it’s a gamble within the rules of the game.

Rather than simpler laws, we need more detail in the law – but not in a picky sense, more in a “points” sense, the way you get points against your driver’s license. Narrow the criteria down to things that can be definitively answered yes or no, assign each one a weight, and add up the weights to get a decision.

Blame the judges. With all the rules of evidence and acceptable readings of rights, etc., truth is no longer the goal in a trial.

Oh how true! No wonder so many politicians are also lawyers.

lol believe anything politicians say. lol now that is Idiocracy. lol

The majority of people taken off the street would be homeless street people. Many (though not all) homeless people are mentally ill. How much of an improvement over the current jury system might that be?

Says it all and very succinctly, sir.

Lawyers are not sworn in; they are sworn at.

I practiced law before the federal courts who, I can assure you, take a dim view of prevarication. The reason lawyers aren’t sworn in is because, as officers of the court, they are always sworn to the truth anytime they speak to the court. Even not bringing unfavorable judicial decisions to the court’s attention is considered being deceitful. I’ve noticed, however, that clients are sometimes the ones who take the truth lightly.

First thing that comes to my mind is “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.” How many people died from that one?

Nobody has mentioned that the words “lawyer” and “liar” are pronounced almost exactly the same, which make it easy to interchange them without really changing the meaning.

The correct answer is that the defense attorney places the burden of proof on the prosecutor and the people. If they are unable to prove their case without his assistance, then that is not his problem.