What is Truth?

Pontius Pilate Would Feel Right at Home

History has been repeated. The outgoing Labour Government has been exposed as once again cooking the books and swindling the nation. (For those who wish to review the in's and out's the NZ Herald Editorial gives a judicious and balanced summary of the facts.) These and other instances have served to remind us of how corrupt the previous administration actually became. Its corruption was systematic and endemic. But so deeply infected with the spirit of lying was the former government that it had become to a degree unconscious, artless, and “normal”.

This deeply shameful situation begs the question about the function and place of truth and lies in any human culture. What is wrong with lying? What is truth? Can there be an objective standard of truth? Are there such things as white lies? What happens when lying becomes institutionalised and normal cultural practice?

We are rapidly learning the answer to the last question. Lying and dissembling, acting in a deceptive and misleading manner, has become the norm within modern Athenian culture. We see its manifestation and fruits on every hand.

One of the most shameful, yet completely accepted, examples of institutionalised lying is found in our judicial system. The adversarial nature of criminal and civil courts requires barristers to give a one-sided presentation of the truth. It encourages them not to tell the whole truth. Now of course the theoretical justification for this is that in the clash of opposing advocates, each seeking to put their case in the most favourable light, we will have a situation where we will most likely expose the actual truth of the matter.

There is much to commend this approach. The proverb says: “The first to plead his case seems right until another comes and examines him.” (Proverbs 18:17) The courts must be places where above all else the truth is sought, discovered, and presented. The Bible calls judges gods: that is, they bear the imprimatur of God Himself, and they do His work, since all judgment belongs to Him.

But the institutions of justice have elided from their Christian design and intentions as Athens has taken over. Now, the point is not justice, but to get a “result”. For the prosecution, the result sought is condemnation; for the defence, acquittal. But neither prosecution nor defence are under obligation to tell the “whole truth” as they know and understand it. Witnesses, including the accused if they give evidence, are under oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth; advocates are not so bound.

Advocates are expected to manipulate, distort, exaggerate, twist, dissemble, and massage the truth. When they do that they are seen to be doing a thorough, professional job. This is shameful.

If an advocate is entitled to lie, why not a witness? Why not the police? No, modern Athenian systems of justice have adopted a cavalier attitude to truth-telling.

Another sacred cow is client attorney privilege. We believe this has been abstracted into an absolute which, in modern jurisprudence, means that advocates are expected to conceal and dissemble. This parlous situation which has undermined the respect for truth in modern Athens could be easily solved.

Firstly, place all advocates under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Secondly, institute serious penalties for perjury Anyone who seeks to pervert the course of justice by lying or dissembling should be adjudged guilty of the same crime which is being tried and be given the same penalty by the court. It is shameful that our modern system of justice merely winks the eye at perjury. It is formally wrong, yet no condemnation or serious penalties attach.

This would mean that if witnesses (whether for prosecution or defence) are found (that is, proven beyond reasonable doubt) to have knowingly and willfully lied to the court in a case of, say, theft, or assault and battery, regardless of whether the accused were convicted or not, they would be judged guilty of theft or assault and battery and sentenced accordingly.

Thirdly, make advocates (both prosecution and defence) subject to charges of perjury. If advocates are shown to have knowingly sought to mislead the court they should be liable to charges of perverting the course of justice and of perjury.

These simple measures would radically unclog our court systems and would do a great deal to restore respect for truth and for justice itself. Trials would be shorter. Justice would be better served. Juries would be more prepared to serve. The truth would be discovered more expeditiously.

Is such reform likely? No, not at all.

Athenian commitment to the truth is shallow and publicly acceptable. Parliament, for example, remains the highest court of the land, yet misleading the House (while still formally forbidden) is openly and knowingly done by all parties and virtually all representatives. Parliament should be a public scandal, but given the institutionalised and legalised mendacity of Athens, its lying and dissembling is accepted as normal and largely appropriate. Truth or lying has become a matter of gamesmanship. When the highest court in the land manifests institutionalised and habitual lying, mendacity is fair game everywhere.

For Athens, lying is a sport everyone plays—its moral justification is simply whether one is successful or not. Any lying is acceptable, as long as one's purposes are served and one can get away with it.