Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/301

 Is Lying Increasing?

281

virtue was vindicated and whose life was saved by a sharp cross-examiner.

and mulattoes only (not conﬁned to slaves). Doubtless they were not pro tected by the Constitution in this regard. By chapter 92, of the laws of 1822, of

Modern lawyers are not always as suc cessful as Daniel was in detecting false

if “any negro or mulatto" shall “have

So the two priests were put to death instead of the beautiful Susanna, whose

hood by cross-examination. With all this evidence of the preva

lence of lying in the ancient world we perhaps may wonder if the frequent

Mississippi, it was provided (§59), that given any false testimony, every such

offender shall, without further trial, be ordered by the said court, to have one

declarations, of judges and others, that

ear nailed to a pillory, and there to stand for the space of one hour, and

perjury is prevalent to a greater extent

then the said ear to be cut off, and there

than ever before, do not merely iridi cate the ever-present inclination to exalt

and cut off at the expiration of one

ancient and decry modern times. Perjury has always been considered a heinous crime.

For one reason, be

after the other ear nailed in like manner, other hour, and moreover to receive

thirty-nine lashes on his or her bare back, well laid on, at the public whip

cause it is so diﬂicult to detect. Another is that the consequences ﬂowing from it

ping post, or such other punishment as the court shall think proper, not extending

are so serious, and, in criminal cases, may, without exaggeration, be termed horrible. In civil cases the whole power of the state may be called upon to

to life or limb."

enforce a judgment in favor of one man against the property of another, which decree rests upon a lie for its validity.

Such a statute sounds like a product of the dark ages in this day. So do the accounts of the burning of “witches" in New England, later than 1822. The statutes of the various states as well as the acts of Congress are still very severe in their punishment of perjury. But whether there is more or less false

Nothing more horrible can be con ceived than sending to the electric chair an entirely innocent man, whose convic swearing now than there has been in any tion has been brought about by false ' other era, it is impossible to tell, because testimony. It is truly better that a there are no statistics on the subject, thousand guilty murderers should escape and can be none, which would be authen

punishment than that one innocent man should be judicially murdered; and it is a matter of record that innocent men have been thus unfortunate. The considerations are obvious there

tic.

New York, who were rivals for the same oﬁice, passed the lie direct on several occasions. One of these men

Two well-advertised politicians in

fore, that have led lawmakers, in all

deplore the prevalence of perjury in the

times of which we have any records, to prescribe serious punishment for the crime of false swearing. It has fre quently been made a capital offense. In spite of the constitutional inhibition against cruel and unusual punishments, some of the Southern states found it necessary to pass stringent laws on this subject, which were applicable to negroes

courts. Falsehood must lie between these men somewhere. But we cannot classify them or their utterances as being truthful or untruthful. Therefore, for the same reason, we are unable to determine the

at least, as a judge, has been known to

sum total of perjury per thousand of inhabitants in our own area, any more than we are able to discover the same percentage in any other age. So long