Barry Bonds Indicted

[Chieflongtee]

Whether or not an individual has committed other crimes is irrelevant to whether or not he may be guilty of perjury. I have no doubt that there are laws in the USA that make it an offence to do so. This is well-known and, I would suspect, near universal prohibition. If you don't want to be convicted of that offence, don't lie under oath. It's as simple as that.

May I remind you that he never tested positive. So innocent until proven guilty.You are playing with words with the non guilty plea take. If you are guilty and enter a non guilty plea it's all the same 5th or not.

[Kilroy]

From what I remember from law class... pleading "Not Guilty" is not the same as pleading "Innocent". That plea does not exist to protect the defendant from pugery at the onset of a trial. All "Not Guilty" means is "Prove me guilty, I am not admitting anything at this point" That is not quite the same thing legally as claming to be innocent.

[jonf]

May I remind you that he never tested positive. So innocent until proven guilty.You are playing with words with the non guilty plea take. If you are guilty and enter a non guilty plea it's all the same 5th or not.

It isn't though. That's the point. Law is all about playing with words.

Not guilty doesn't necessarily mean "i didn't do anything wrong." It is not an innocent plea - there is an important difference. Someone charged with murder will often plead not guilty to murder 1, not because they didn't commit the crime, but because they believe it was not premeditated. The not guilty plea is simply a procedural matter. And like he said, an individual is not under oath when they enter a plea.

[sillywilly]

I know its not the same but there should be something that protects someone from a siatuation like this. You tell the truth you lose everything, you like, you lie... you COULD lose everything and go to jail, you take the 5th and you lose everything. That is a very tough decision guys. I have no clue what Iwould do. When you weigh what you are going to lose vs. a perjury charge and it almost balances out or what you lose is is more then you would be expected to lie. I don't agree with what barry did, I don't agree with cheating but something seems wrong about charging a guy with perjury when lieing seemed like his only reasonable option.

[jonf]

I know its not the same but there should be something that protects someone from a siatuation like this.

There actually is something very simple: don't do things that will get you in trouble with the public, your employer, or the law.

The only reason that it was his "only" option was that he ed up in the first place. He got himself into a big mess...he has to deal with the consequences.

[mpare]

We differ on this point. The law is neither a word game, nor merely a linguistic exercise. To the contrary, the law seeks to regulate the conduct and affairs of persons and states in their private and public affairs, in fair, understandable and predictable ways. In the system of laws that operates in North America that is done through the common law and through statutory laws. It's true that the intent, scope and meaning of those laws may need to be carefully considered to determine their applicability and effect within any given fact situation. It is equally true that this process will oftentimes be aided by a close examination of the words of a statute or a court decision. However, this latter exercise is not, and should never be, an end in itself, but merely an aid in the pursuit of the ultimate goal of a fair and predictable application of those laws to the public and private actions of persons and states.

... Law is all about playing with words.

[mpare]

The law is not at fault for the quandary in which an individual, who may not have complied with the rules of the game, may find himself. As others have said, the root cause of that problem lies with the individual himself. No system of laws could successfully operate in any society, if they did not sanction individuals who lied under oath. While it may be understandle why someone who is testifying might be motivated to fudge the truth, that person must be held accountable for his failure to honour his oath or affirmation. Were it otherwise, then pubic faith and confidence in that institution, which is a condition precedent for it to successfully operate in any democracy, would simply evaporate.

Just to be clear, I make no judgment on whether Barry Bonds used steroids, nor whether he may be guilty of perjury. What is of interest to me, though, why the failure to testify truthfully should be sanctioned.

I know its not the same but there should be something that protects someone from a siatuation like this. You tell the truth you lose everything, you like, you lie... you COULD lose everything and go to jail, you take the 5th and you lose everything. That is a very tough decision guys. I have no clue what Iwould do. When you weigh what you are going to lose vs. a perjury charge and it almost balances out or what you lose is is more then you would be expected to lie. I don't agree with what barry did, I don't agree with cheating but something seems wrong about charging a guy with perjury when lieing seemed like his only reasonable option.

[jonf]

We differ on this point. The law is neither a word game, nor merely a linguistic exercise. To the contrary, the law seeks to regulate the conduct and affairs of persons and states in their private and public affairs, in fair, understandable and predictable ways. In the system of laws that operates in North America that is done through the common law and through statutory laws. It's true that the intent, scope and meaning of those laws may need to be carefully considered to determine their applicability and effect within any given fact situation. It is equally true that this process will oftentimes be aided by a close examination of the words of a statute or a court decision. However, this latter exercise is not, and should never be, an end in itself, but merely an aid in the pursuit of the ultimate goal of a fair and predictable application of those laws to the public and private actions of persons and states.

You're right. What I meant by my statement was simply that law is all about specifics. The alteration of one word in a law, question, witness statement etc. can have a huge impact. Basically, what I was trying to say is that the precise words used ARE extremely important, because each one of them is there with a purpose. There is nothing accidental in a given statute. Every word carries a very specific meaning. And in this case, a PLEA of not guilty carries very different connotations than saying on the stand that you have done nothing wrong.

[bazooka Don]

What am I doing up at this time. Not golfing that's for sure. Hopefully Barry is going to get everything he deserves. But he probably won't. He was the best of his time because all those power hitters from Cansceco to McGuire to Sosa, you can go through the list. Every last one of them were on some type of performance enhancing drugs. But all those other guys weren't arrogant, pompous, selfish INDIVIDUAL who could care less about anyone else around them. Also I wouldn't compare drug problems in Canada to the USA. Ben Johnson was crucified and made an example of by the Canadian Government. GOOD JOB. If he was an American he probably would have been suspended for a year and been right back at it. And don't try and tell me that Carl Lewis wasn't on something. It's a matter of who has the best chemist. BYE BYE BARRY. But forget about saying Bye to perfomance enhancing drugs. There is too much money on the table.

[Chieflongtee]

Agree with your take on Barry. And imo baseball and its owners are just as guilty. Eveyone knows that this has been going on for years but no one did anything about itas long as the stands were full and the cash was flowing.. However no one has anwered my question about Palmero. Lying to Congress is just as bad.
Anyway here is a list of famous unpunished lies:

I did not have sex with that woman.
I did not know anything about sponsorship
I did not bet on baseball
I never took steroids
Your check is in the mail

[mpare]

Here is an extract from an old Fox Sports news story. It may address, in part, your question about Palmeiro.

" On August 5th, 2005, Congress decided to investigate into whether or not Rafael Palmeiro perjured himself during his testimony in March. Many people note that perjury cases are very rare, and difficult to prosecute, which is true.

Representative Tom Davis, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee (which was investigating Palmeiro, at the time) says:

"As a practical matter, perjury referrals are uncommon. Prosecutions are rare. But this is a high-profile case, so I think it will get an honest look-see. I don't think anyone can avoid it. If we did nothing, I think we'd look like idiots. Don't you?"

And so the House Government Reform Committee (HGRC) dove-into the case surrounding Palmeiro, including an examination of the positive test results as well as an intricate investigation into Palmeiro's past.

On November 11th, 2005, the HGRC, citing a lack of sufficient evidence, said that it would not persue a perjury case against Palmeiro.

Tom Davis released another statement during that week:

"We couldn't find any evidence of steroid use prior to his testimony," Davis said. "That's not a finding of innocence, but it's a finding that we could not substantiate perjury." "

... no one has anwered my question about Palmero. Lying to Congress is just as bad.

[Chieflongtee]

[QUOTE][/We couldn't find any evidence of steroid use prior to his testimony," Davis said. "That's not a finding of innocence, but it's a finding that we could not substantiate perjury." QUOTE]

Does that mean that they have evidence for Bonds?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

[spackler]

Remember, Bonds was not being investigated himself when his alleged perjury occurred. The grand jury was investigating indictments against Balco. Jason Giambi apparently told the truth about his steroid use and has not faced legal consequences. Bonds could have told the truth and not been legally bothered again.