Raise your hand

[KitaYama]

Two questions :
1-
In court, witnesses are required to raise their hand and swear, traditionally on a Bible, that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I question whether this practice has any meaningful effect on the accuracy of testimony.
A witness who intends to lie will not suddenly become truthful because an oath was administered, while a witness who intends to tell the truth has no need for one.

Moreover, the legal consequences for lying under oath, since perjury applies only in that context. This creates an odd implication: that false statements made outside an oath are treated as less serious, or even implicitly acceptable, despite still occurring within a judicial process. (During interrogations, ....)
If the court’s goal is to establish the truth, why does that obligation seem to depend on a ceremonial moment rather than applying uniformly to all testimony? What concrete problem does the oath actually solve?

2-
I do NOT understand concurrent sentencing. Why bother giving a 2nd sentence if it's going to be concurrent?
To me it means : We sentence you, but you don't need to care about it. Because it won't happen.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

1. Raising the hand for the perjury oath is a formality, a part of the oath-taking process. The penalty for perjury (specifically, lying under oath in court) is the reason for having given an oath at all. Without the oath, you correctly point out that there can be no penalty for that particular action. To the extent that a lie can be discovered, the oath "enables" the imposition of a penalty. The penalty, not the oath, is why you believe testimony under oath better than statements not made under oath.

False statements outside of an oath can be simple story-telling. For instance, me at a poker game - for which the only oaths are probably blasphemous.

2. Sometimes we don't understand concurrent sentencing either. However, judges are allowed to make sentences concurrent or consecutive as they wish, and we DO have a standard that says that the punishment must fit the crime. If someone has 30 counts of selling something illegally that is worth at most a 1-5 year sentence, no physical harm was done, and full or partial restitution occurs, a judge MIGHT choose concurrent sentences. It IS left to their discretion.

One thing that consecutive sentencing does is it delays the probability of parole, since most states have some rule about the percentage of your sentence you must serve to be eligible. If you get five sentences of 50 years to life consecutively, the odds of you living long enough to reach the local limit, even if it is only 50%, are pretty low.

One of the problems regarding "consecutive" vs. "concurrent" is that some states have legislators who were elected on a "get tough on crime" promise and they use longer jail sentences rather than attack the problems that drive criminals to commit crimes. Judges, on the other hand, have the right to show mercy if they feel it is warranted, and the ability to run sentences concurrently is the way to counteract what we call a "hanging judge" (historically, a judge who imposes the harshest penalty available every time.)

 

[MarkK]

1-
I think requiring a witness to swear an oath as a ritual in a process is more about granting legitimacy to the process itself, not so much to force a witness to render accurate testimony, which as you observe, is impossible.
If you were to design a process that at its core is only based on trust anyway, what features would you design into it so that observers, and would-be mis-trusters, would be more likely--in their minds--to grant it legitimacy?

2-
Similarly, look at process legitimacy, not outcome effects & implementation.

I think the question of legitimacy of process is critical. What is lacking in despotism is that outcomes are implemented on the whim of the despot.
• Advantage? No red tape. Git 'er done.
• Disadvantage? Despotic whimsy lacks institutional and legal procedural legitimacy. If a despot rules by fiat on a whim, why shouldn't his generals conspire to replace him on a whim?

 

[KitaYama]

Still your situation is better than ours. You raise your hand, say a word and are done.
Our system maybe the worst.

1. Before a witness testifies, the court must have the witness take an oath in writing.
2. The written oath must state that the witness swears to tell the truth, not conceal anything, and not add anything, according to their conscience.
3. The judge reads the oath aloud, and the witness then signs and seals it while standing solemnly.
4. After the oath, the court must also inform the witness of the punishment for perjury.

And that piece of signed paper will always remain in our history till the day we die.

One thing that consecutive sentencing does is it delays the probability of parole,

I think adding a "Without the possibiity of parole" to the first sentence will do the same magic.

 

[KitaYama]

I think you skiped over the practical concern I raised.
I’m not arguing that crimes shouldn’t be formally acknowledged or recorded. I understand why each offense needs a conviction and a sentence on the record for appeals, criminal history, and future sentencing.

What I’m questioning is "calling it a sentence, when it has no independent punitive effect, creates confusion about what punishment actually means."
For me, concurrent sentencing seems more like symbolic bookkeeping, not accountability.
If the real purpose is record-keeping and formal recognition, then that should be stated clearly. Otherwise I'm not wrong if I think why a “sentence” is imposed when it will never be served as a distinct punishment. If it's not served, it's not a sentence.

 

[DickyP]

Concurrent sentencing is the norm in UK to the extent that I can't ever remember hearing of the award of consecutive sentences.

However, concurrent does mean that every sentence has to treated individually when parole/release is considered.

 

[MarkK]

I'm not wrong

To be clear, there is no part of my claim that says your claim is wrong. As with any nuanced claim, we are not so much talking about what the thing is that we observe, but who the person is who observes it.

And for what it's worth, I've never seen incarceration as primarily punitive of the offender, as I've seen it to be protective of the society to which harm was done. In my view, our imperative to protect ourselves from harm is a more noble and just motive than that of meting out suffering to one we deem to have deserved it.

Again, I make no case about what the object is, but here's who I am that sees it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

MarkK raises a significant point and I have to agree both to its validity and relevance.

KitaYama asks about sentencing as part of his original question, implying a question revolving around Prison. What is the purpose of prison? Is it to obtain justice? What does that really mean? (And no, I'm not being obtuse, here.)

Is justice the intentional imposition of suffering and degradation? If so, is justice a form of punishment or vengeance?

Is justice looking to rehabilitate a criminal? In which case, why does a "life without parole" sentence make sense at all, because that prisoner would never reach a point where that rehabilitation would be tested in practice.

Is justice a form of retribution? In which case, why do some states outlaw the death penalty, even for the crime of premeditated murder with special options such as sexual actions, mutilation-level brutality, or multiple deaths?

Is justice to protect the public by keeping an animal-in-human-form off the streets forever? In which case you have to ask whether rehabilitation is being ignored.

To know why the sentence was imposed, you have to ask what justice really means. At base, it means "being held accountable for your actions." It means "consequences of acting illegally, immorally, or irresponsibly."

Which seques into the issue about oaths. KitaYama, your method of taking an oath for court is different in implementation than ours, but no different in that a liar is still a liar. You still have to catch the perjurer in the act or that person will leave the court building and - if they are lucky - evade being held responsible for their action of lying in court.

 

[MarkK]

you have to ask what justice really means

Justice only exists in our minds. If there were no people, the entire spectrum 'justice <--> injustice' would fail to exist.

 

[KitaYama]

To be clear, there is no part of my claim that says your claim is wrong.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean you're saying I'm wrong. Bad choice of words on my side. Apologies.

 

[MarkK]

@KitaYama Zero harm done. Indeed, thanks for starting an interesting discussion.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Justice only exists in our minds. If there were no people, the entire spectrum 'justice <--> injustice' would fail to exist.

If the definition of justice includes "responsibility for one's actions" then, without humans coming into the picture, let's try this example: When a little dog nips a big dog and that big dog grabs the little dog in his mouth and violently shakes him and then drops him on his head, did justice just get implemented? Is justice just a name for human-implemented karma?

 

[MarkK]

@The_Doc_Man If you tell a story no one hears, where does that story exist? If you witness an event that occurs between two dogs, where does that experience exist? If you interpret events as meaning something, where is that meaning?
• Observation is participatory and understanding is creative. It is possible that events occur in 'the world,' but if they do, the only handle we have on them is our perception. And where does that perception exist?
• If you tell a story and I hear it, there are two humans in the picture, indeed the picture itself is a creation of mind, and has no existence in the world apart from its creators and observers.
• If there are no humans, there is no perception, no meaning, no story, and therefore no spectrum of justice <-> injustice.

Little bites big, big bites back. It is a meaningless event. A claim of justice having been done is a metadata creation of mind.

 

[KitaYama]

For me, justice means enforcing what the law prescribes. If the law in a country states that crime A carries a sentence of five years in prison and crime B carries a sentence of two years, then justice is served when a person who commits crime A spends five years behind bars.

This is why I struggle to understand concurrent sentencing.
Suppose one person is found guilty of crime A and is sentenced to five years in prison.
Another person is found guilty of both crimes A and B. He receives five years for crime A and two years for crime B, but the two sentences run concurrently.
In practice, both individuals spend the same amount of time in prison, even though one committed an additional crime and has caused greater harm to society.
To me, these two persons should not be treated the same.

If either person is rehabilitated and released early, that is acceptable, because sentencing should not be about revenge or pure punishment. Its purpose should be to create a safer and more stable society. But sentencing both of them to the same period for different counts of crimes is injustice. (in my eyes)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you tell a story no one hears, where does that story exist?

In the mind of the storyteller.

If you witness an event that occurs between two dogs, where does that experience exist?

In the minds of any witnesses (including yourself). But dogs remember friendship as well as abuse, so I can't say they would forget bad treatment.

If you interpret events as meaning something, where is that meaning?

In the minds of any observers, or in the minds of those to whom you describe the events.

Little bites big, big bites back. It is a meaningless event. A claim of justice having been done is a metadata creation of mind.

Such a narrow viewpoint! But it is your right to hold it so. One could equally claim that the "big dog bites little dog" story is the result of evolutionary development in which there are hierarchies of predators.

Your comments on observation being participatory? That is why courts frequently require more than one witness for certain types of crime, on the theory that a single observer has a decent chance of having remembered it inaccurately.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@KitaYama - your concern over concurrent sentences contains one minor speed bump.

In practice, both individuals spend the same amount of time in prison, even though one committed an additional crime and has caused greater harm to society.
To me, these two persons should not be treated the same.

The USA is one nation made up of 50 sovereign states, each of which has the legal right to enact the laws and penalties as they see fit. It is possible in the USA for a given crime to have different sentences in different states. The rules and/or guidelines on concurrent or consecutive sentencing is also part of the prerogative of each state.

Most of the time, states are more or less in parallel with each other regarding what is or is not a crime, and the idea of sentencing ranges is permitted because judges can impose fine control over sentences when they have a range. That occurs because we have a U.S. Constitutional rule against cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, if we want to "throw the book at" some criminal, state laws have to allow it. Right now, for the last several years in fact, the USA has undergone some internal turmoil over the issue of responsibility, crime, and punishment. But the theory has always been that the individual states were our crucibles, to distill the truth regarding various laws. We have to assume that people are more or less that same all around the country, but that crucible concept allows us to compare notes between states that have differences in a particular law. From that comparison, we can perhaps learn what works best - if any state has FOUND something that works for their particular problem.

To your mind, we are lax on criminals. I would have to agree that in some states, we are. But in others, we are not, and many of us hope that the stricter states prevail when we consider our crucibles.

 

[MarkK]

Such a narrow viewpoint!

It's not actually narrow. It's narrow, to you.

 

[KitaYama]

@KitaYama - your concern over concurrent sentences contains one minor speed bump.



The USA is one nation made up of 50 sovereign states, each of which has the legal right to enact the laws and penalties as they see fit. It is possible in the USA for a given crime to have different sentences in different states. The rules and/or guidelines on concurrent or consecutive sentencing is also part of the prerogative of each state.

Most of the time, states are more or less in parallel with each other regarding what is or is not a crime, and the idea of sentencing ranges is permitted because judges can impose fine control over sentences when they have a range. That occurs because we have a U.S. Constitutional rule against cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, if we want to "throw the book at" some criminal, state laws have to allow it. Right now, for the last several years in fact, the USA has undergone some internal turmoil over the issue of responsibility, crime, and punishment. But the theory has always been that the individual states were our crucibles, to distill the truth regarding various laws. We have to assume that people are more or less that same all around the country, but that crucible concept allows us to compare notes between states that have differences in a particular law. From that comparison, we can perhaps learn what works best - if any state has FOUND something that works for their particular problem.

To your mind, we are lax on criminals. I would have to agree that in some states, we are. But in others, we are not, and many of us hope that the stricter states prevail when we consider our crucibles.

Doc, you didn't answer my concern. I know about the difference in states laws.
Still in each single state, my concern persists.
If a person in any state has commit a crime, his sentence should be different with another person who has commit the same crime plus additional crimes (in the same state).
If in any state, these two people are sentenced to the same amount of jail time, it's injustice. One of them has done more damages.

I watched a youtube about a person who was in court for 31 accusation. The verdict came out guilty for all charges, sentenced for count 1 or 3, and all remaining charges were concurrent to count 1 and three. Doesn't it mean you're free to do any amount of crimes you want as long as you stand accountable for one of them?

Here's what I think :
To me it seems if a criminal is wise enough to do certain crimes at the same time, he'll face only for one of those crimes, and all other wrong doings will be concurrent.

An example:
Someone slaps you and takes your wallet. He'll be sentenced for robbing you, and slapping you will be concurrent to count 1. Are you OK with it.
In another occasion, I take your wallet and will be sentenced to the same amount of jail time as above person. Am I OK with this?
Hell no. I didn't slap you, which later I may wish I had. ( When I realize if I had, it had no effect on outcoming.)

Think about it in wilder situations and crimes

 

[MarkK]

One of them has done more damages.

Embedded in this view--to me--is that you may view justice more as punishment of the offender, and less as protection of society. Again, not a 'wrong' view, but consider, in respect to your slap/steal wallet scenario...
• What if the person who only stole the wallet is well known to police for many, many previous crimes--and not just petty crimes--and that person is unrepentant in court, claiming he has a right to take what he wants, when he wants it.
• And what if for the person who slapped the doc man AND stole his wallet, this is their first crime ever. This person weeps in court, expressing such remorse at his own actions, and it comes to be understood that had recently lost his job because of insane tariffs, and ICE agents had recently shot his wife in the leg, and his children were going hungry. He committed crimes against his better judgment and under extreme duress.

I think justice should not be a strict accounting of retribution for damage done. It should be a much more nuanced balance of circumstance, intent, remorse (recognition of guilt), and likelihood of re-offence. Justice should ask, who is the offender and what course of action in sentencing is most likely to produce a beneficial outcome in respect to the overall needs of the society.

Concurrent sentencing allows a court to both honour the structured legality (the offender was found guilty and properly sentenced on all charges), and the best interests of society (the offender was deemed a low risk to re-offend, and that prolonged incarceration would compound social harm, not remedy it).

What is justice with no possibility of mercy? Maybe think of concurrent sentencing as a legal mechanism for a court to show mercy.

 

[Isaac]

Two questions :
1-
In court, witnesses are required to raise their hand and swear, traditionally on a Bible, that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I question whether this practice has any meaningful effect on the accuracy of testimony.
A witness who intends to lie will not suddenly become truthful because an oath was administered, while a witness who intends to tell the truth has no need for one.

Moreover, the legal consequences for lying under oath, since perjury applies only in that context. This creates an odd implication: that false statements made outside an oath are treated as less serious, or even implicitly acceptable, despite still occurring within a judicial process. (During interrogations, ....)
If the court’s goal is to establish the truth, why does that obligation seem to depend on a ceremonial moment rather than applying uniformly to all testimony? What concrete problem does the oath actually solve?

2-
I do NOT understand concurrent sentencing. Why bother giving a 2nd sentence if it's going to be concurrent?
To me it means : We sentence you, but you don't need to care about it. Because it won't happen.

The person must be under oath, affirmation, or a legally equivalent declaration.
Examples:

• Testifying in court
• Sworn depositions
• Affidavits
• Sworn written statements (including some government forms)

...so it's not just during sworn testimony.

And the concurrent sentences could be:
1) to give the family a sense of additional justice
2) to give a second or third victim a sense that they are being heard/seen
3) to avoid a legal situation where the defendant gets time taken off of one sentence for good behavior in prison and gets out early - so the concurrent second sentence might prevent that.