Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch
I'll leave it to Sidd to defend the profession, but to me there's a difference between presenting facts that are not The Truth (because they are incomplete, or misleading, or even because their sole witness is a person you know to be a liar) and saying things that are lies. We privilege FBI agents to lie in order to accomplish the tasks we have set out for them, and that's unique -- when lawyers lie, they're violating an oath they gave and a rule of professional conduct, but when FBI agents lie they're acting working the official job description. I'm not saying they lie on the stand -- heaven forfend! -- but I think they're uncomfortable being on the stand because they're not in control in a very specific way: they've lost the option to tell an untruth without consequence, and that's why they squirm.
|
The Chinese wall there is about as thick as a Chinese noodle. When it comes down to an argument about the instrumentalities used to reach an admittedly improper result, the debate's well beyond academic, deep into frivolous.
That's not to say I don't recognize and appreciate the difference you noted. Advocacy's similar to abortion. Nobody likes it, it's viewed negatively for good reason, but it's necessary because the circumstances allow no other cure for the problem. Humans are venal, deceitful creatures. We litigators at least agree to bullshit each other with some level of attention to underlying truth. Courtrooms provide the most principled system in which lies can compete and our peers can figure out which they like best.
I'd prefer fisticuffs myself, at least to settle civil disputes (much more effective, elegant and efficient), but my views on this aren't considered mainstream enough to gain any traction.
