What is the penalty for falsifying evidence and what should it be?
Perjury, at least according to one source, is defined as “the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.” Falsifying evidence (e.g., a lab technician who presents a lab report that demonstrates an incriminating DNA match even though the actual test s/he performed proved otherwise) is essentially a form of perjury. To keep this discussion simple, let us assume that there is credible and indisputable evidence that the lab technician in this example was bribed with a large sum of money to do such.
What do we typically do in such situations, and what should we do? If nothing else, it should go without saying that anyone accused of a crime, whether perjury or anything else, is entitled to a fair trial. Let us assume that the individual in question has been found guilty of perjury (or an equivalent charge) by a trial of his/her “peers,” and that s/he has exhausted all of his/her appeals. Now what?
According to one legal website, “State and federal penalties for perjury include fines and/or prison terms upon conviction. Federal law (18 USC § 1621), for example, states that anyone found guilty of the crime will be fined or imprisoned for up to five years.” I have an example which appears to validate this. When I served on grand jury duty in Queens, NY, one of the cases that we heard was a murder case involving testimony from a lab technician who ran a DNA test comparing blood found at the crime scene to the blood of the accused party. The grand jury voted to indict, meaning we approved the case to go to trial since there was reasonable evidence that a crime was committed. I later (“off the record”) asked the assistant DA who presented the case, “What would happen to the lab technician if in the future it was proven in court that he completely falsified his lab report, and that the accused party's DNA was nowhere near the crime scene as was stated?” With only the tiniest of pause to think, the assistant DA said, “Oh, he'd get about a year in prison.”
In retrospect, I should have asked for more details such as whether he would go a maximum-security prison, or a so-called “country club” prison alongside the rich, famous, and politically-connected. I also should have asked if he meant that the technician would be sentenced to three years, but would be out in one year for good behavior, or if he would be sentenced to one year, and be out in four months for good behavior.
Let's think about this very carefully. Our entire system of justice is based upon all participants involved in a court case telling the truth in every possible sense of the word. Falsifying or tampering with evidence and passing off such as the truth is a form of a lie. Because of false testimony in any form, an innocent person may go to prison for a given period of time which may be the rest of his/her life, or s/he may be sentenced to death. Does it make sense that a person who knowingly commits perjury in any form should only go to prison for five years? Let's be generous and assume that s/he will spend the full five years in prison, and that it will be a maximum-security prison. Is five years still enough? Is it anywhere near enough? Can people be expected to have respect for a justice system in which perjury is somehow not that much of a big deal, and comes with a punishment similar to that which is used for crimes that are not very severe?
An advanced nation should have laws such that a person who is proven guilty of knowingly committing perjury in any form is dealt with in the exact same way that we deal with someone who is found guilty of committing pre-meditated murder or rape. The individual made a conscious choice to lie in some manner of speaking, knowing full well the injustice to an innocent human being that would result. In my experience, most Americans are not comfortable with my suggestion. They consider perjury to be a simple, “white-collar” crime (perhaps comparable to cheating on one's taxes), and they don't feel as though an especially harsh punishment is called for. They are also quick to say, “The person ruined his/her entire career. Isn't that enough?” The matter is just something to think about and/or discuss.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
What do we typically do in such situations, and what should we do? If nothing else, it should go without saying that anyone accused of a crime, whether perjury or anything else, is entitled to a fair trial. Let us assume that the individual in question has been found guilty of perjury (or an equivalent charge) by a trial of his/her “peers,” and that s/he has exhausted all of his/her appeals. Now what?
According to one legal website, “State and federal penalties for perjury include fines and/or prison terms upon conviction. Federal law (18 USC § 1621), for example, states that anyone found guilty of the crime will be fined or imprisoned for up to five years.” I have an example which appears to validate this. When I served on grand jury duty in Queens, NY, one of the cases that we heard was a murder case involving testimony from a lab technician who ran a DNA test comparing blood found at the crime scene to the blood of the accused party. The grand jury voted to indict, meaning we approved the case to go to trial since there was reasonable evidence that a crime was committed. I later (“off the record”) asked the assistant DA who presented the case, “What would happen to the lab technician if in the future it was proven in court that he completely falsified his lab report, and that the accused party's DNA was nowhere near the crime scene as was stated?” With only the tiniest of pause to think, the assistant DA said, “Oh, he'd get about a year in prison.”
In retrospect, I should have asked for more details such as whether he would go a maximum-security prison, or a so-called “country club” prison alongside the rich, famous, and politically-connected. I also should have asked if he meant that the technician would be sentenced to three years, but would be out in one year for good behavior, or if he would be sentenced to one year, and be out in four months for good behavior.
Let's think about this very carefully. Our entire system of justice is based upon all participants involved in a court case telling the truth in every possible sense of the word. Falsifying or tampering with evidence and passing off such as the truth is a form of a lie. Because of false testimony in any form, an innocent person may go to prison for a given period of time which may be the rest of his/her life, or s/he may be sentenced to death. Does it make sense that a person who knowingly commits perjury in any form should only go to prison for five years? Let's be generous and assume that s/he will spend the full five years in prison, and that it will be a maximum-security prison. Is five years still enough? Is it anywhere near enough? Can people be expected to have respect for a justice system in which perjury is somehow not that much of a big deal, and comes with a punishment similar to that which is used for crimes that are not very severe?
An advanced nation should have laws such that a person who is proven guilty of knowingly committing perjury in any form is dealt with in the exact same way that we deal with someone who is found guilty of committing pre-meditated murder or rape. The individual made a conscious choice to lie in some manner of speaking, knowing full well the injustice to an innocent human being that would result. In my experience, most Americans are not comfortable with my suggestion. They consider perjury to be a simple, “white-collar” crime (perhaps comparable to cheating on one's taxes), and they don't feel as though an especially harsh punishment is called for. They are also quick to say, “The person ruined his/her entire career. Isn't that enough?” The matter is just something to think about and/or discuss.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents