|
Congressman Hyde's Statement On Perjury And Related Crimes
Wells of Justice, Editor's Note: With a few changes in identifying the "weak," Congressman Hyde's statement applies to the poor and unrepresented in the civil courts. His comments about the double-standard of law applies to those U.S. Attorneys, the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, U.S. Trustees, chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees, and their conspirators who excuse perjury, obstruction of justice, and deceptive practices by presenting victims as parties undeserving of justice.
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
AT THE OVERSIGHT HEARING ON
"THE CONSEQUENCES OF PERJURY
AND RELATED CRIMES"
DECEMBER 1, 1998
9:30 A.M. 2141 RAYBURN
Today, the Committee holds an oversight hearing on the consequences of perjury and related crimes like subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, misprision, and criminal contempt. All of these crimes thwart the proper workings of the justice system.
We hold this hearing because Rule 10 of the House of Representatives requires us to exercise continuing oversight over the "application, administration, execution, and effectiveness" of the laws under our jurisdiction. Of particular relevance here, we have jurisdiction over the judicial system and the criminal code.
Commentators of all stripes have fiercely debated the gravity of these crimes in recent months. Otherwise responsible and thoughtful people have argued that they are not so serious, particularly when they occur in civil cases or when they relate to hiding "private" sexual matters. Indeed, some have even suggested that being a gentleman requires one to lie under oath about sex. By their very nature, these kinds of crime attack the integrity of the judicial system. Indeed, that is why they are crimes.
To argue that, in certain instances, these crimes mean little is to say that our
judicial system means little. I emphatically reject that notion.
Remember the fundamentals. We have a judicial system because it is fairer and more civilized to settle disputes through judicial means than to settle them through brute force. When brute force prevails, the strong win and the weak lose - an efficient method, but hardly a just one. It is particularly disturbing, and indeed shameful, that many who generally claim to represent the weak now argue that the powerful should be allowed a pass when they break the rules. There is nothing just or fair in a double standard.
We make perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness
tampering crimes because a judicial system can only succeed if its procedures expose the truth. If citizens are allowed to lie with impunity - or encourage others to tell false stories - or hide evidence - judges and juries cannot reach just results. At that point, the courtroom becomes an arena for artful liars and the jury a mere focus group choosing between alternative fictions.
So, for my friends who think that perjury, lying, and deceit are in some
circumstances acceptable and undeserving of punishment, I respectfully disagree.
Every citizen is entitled to her day in court -- to have her claims considered
under the rule of law and free from these abhorrent acts. That applies no matter how small, or unpopular, or unimportant, that person is --- and no matter how great, or popular, or powerful, her opponent is.
Chief Justice Burger resoundingly affirmed the seriousness of perjury when he wrote:"In [the] constitutional process of securing a witness' testimony, perjury simply has no place whatever. Perjured testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against the type of egregious offense are therefore imperative. The power of subpoena, broad as it is, and the power of contempt for refusing to answer, drastic as that is -and even the solemnity of the oath-cannot insure truthful answers. Hence Congress has made the giving of false answers a criminal act punishable by severe penalties; in no other way can criminal conduct be flushed into the open where the law can deal with it."
Similarly, our cases have consistently-indeed without exception-allowed
sanctions for false statement or perjury; they have done so even in instances
where the perjurer complained that the Government exceeded its constitutional powers in making the inquiry. United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1976) (plurality opinion) (footnote and citations omitted).
Even when the weak dare to confront the strong, the truth is not trivial -- playing by the rules is not trivial. The whole history of our civilization tells us that justice is not trivial.
Lying poisons justice. If we are to defend justice and the rule of law, lying
must have consequences. We will explore the impact of lying on the rule of law and the implications of the double standard from our distinguished panel whom I again welcome.
|