Someone who testifies about something they couldn’t possibly know anything about has most likely been paid to lie, been suborned. They are knowingly trying to pervert both justice and the judicial process. They are quite rightly to be punished for that.
On the other hand, even honest eyewitness testimony is known to be wildly unreliable, which is why there are so many instances where the law requires corroboration. Complete contradiction between unimpeachable eyewitnesses is common.
There is rarely a way to reliably ascertain which is right, let alone whether the other is deliberately lying.
To punish one witness every time two witnesses contradicted one another would be both impractical and unfair.
Search
Archives
Subscribe
09/05/2011 at 11:15 AM
A possible solution to Rabbi Dardik’s dilemma:
Someone who testifies about something they couldn’t possibly know anything about has most likely been paid to lie, been suborned. They are knowingly trying to pervert both justice and the judicial process. They are quite rightly to be punished for that.
On the other hand, even honest eyewitness testimony is known to be wildly unreliable, which is why there are so many instances where the law requires corroboration. Complete contradiction between unimpeachable eyewitnesses is common.
There is rarely a way to reliably ascertain which is right, let alone whether the other is deliberately lying.
To punish one witness every time two witnesses contradicted one another would be both impractical and unfair.
It seems that Torah simply reflects this reality.
Login to reply to this comment or post your own