From WikiMediation

Jump to: navigation, search

The lie is a way to divert attention from what happened, is happening or is logically supposed to happen. Lying consists to present information through ways of influence - usually based on real, implied or imaginary trust - in view to transform the course of an event or change the perception of reality.

The lie is based on emotion, fear, and combines a suspicion (interpretation of other’s intentions) and a judgment.


[edit] The Intention in the Lie

Except lies which are made for joke, what motivates a person to lie is that he believes, wrongly or rightly, that reality would not be accepted as such by the recipient of the lie...

[edit] How Should a Mediator Behave in Front of the Lie?

This question is often asked during mediation training. Issue of ethics. Issue of deontology. The answer is not simpler, a priori, than to demonstrate the certitude (or rather the fact) to be actually facing a liar.

We know, in mediation, that lying is part of the human functioning. Often the mediator must listen to the people's difficulties to come back to the facts the least interpreted and deformed as possible...

[edit] The Outreau Case

About lying, the Outreau case appears in people's minds. The judicial system has been pointed out. The painful self-criticism that has occurred in front of the video cameras of television was certainly an unprecedented act in view of the transformation of the judicial system.

The journalists finally expressed some guilt. We remember indeed the lack of prudence in the accusing titles, attesting presumptions of guilt on assertions of guilt, of the press which, instead of reporting and informing, had turned into a tribunal and, finally, into a press of scandals.

As an illustration of a crushing mechanism similar to the Outreau case, Jean-Louis Lascoux mentioned some time ago "Silence of the Innocents" (DVD movie).

It is also interesting to watch "Shattered Glass" (DVD movie). The mystifying pirouette, manipulative stratagem, goes very high, since the film's producer is no one else than... Tom Cruise, known for his affinity with Scientology... but whatever.

We can think about what can lead someone to tell false, even unbelievable, things. And we can also wonder why everyone is so fooled and what make them even add other comments.

It seems to be the mechanism of rumors. By ease, convenience, ignorance, no one goes further. By confidence or fear, no one checks.

However, there are many mechanisms that can explain the obstinacy of the young investigator. Faced with the inquiry commission, flanked by two lawyers, nothing seems to surprise him. Curious defense system than the one that suggests the evidence he had could enable him - and therefore still could - to justify his behavior during the trial. He would have done only his job. What shall we think?

Do not we know that if there is one thing that each individual cannot bear, it is to be wrong? And to have been so wrong, is this not difficult to perceive?

[edit] The Memoirs of the Bodyguard of Hitler

I have watched the interview of Rochus Misch, bodyguard of Hitler, on the occasion of the release of his book. He did not express to have done something wrong. He even said that many Germans would have preferred being in his place. This argument, according to him, justifies his complete lack of regret once the proper information has been revealed...

By the way, we could wonder if the copyright will go in compensation for the harm suffered by victims of such indifference because of the involvement, albeit indirect but real, of this bodyguard. Now let's imagine that the magistrate-instructor makes one day benefits by telling his persistent version to have done his duty by respecting the right... Let's imagine and pass.

[edit] Surprising Parallel

Regarding the question of proof, the thought of Henri Poincaré should be reminded: "The scientist must put into order; Science is made with facts as a house with stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house... ". By simply paraphrasing, we can say that a set of statements or even facts do not constitute more an evidence than a heap of stones is a house...

The mediators must get inspired from such events. They hear. They listen. Nothing proves that what is said to them is true. They must know how to stop at that point: they only heard words. Moreover, they do not have to establish any evidence. In no way, they can claim of being expert in detecting truth.

From this position of impartiality, the professional of instruction could get inspired, if someday the French law gives one person the task of investigating the prosecution and defense: the statements are only words. the treatment of information gathered during the investigation of a penal case, and even more during a criminal case, should be even more cautious - since indeed the informants are inevitably stressed.

One more thing about the statements of the psychologist expert: is what he said regarding his working methods really outrageous? Certainly, we can worry about the fact that an auxiliary of the judiciary indicates that he has botched his expertise under the pretext he considers his salary ridiculous (“salary of a housekeeper = quality work of a housekeeper" - that can be defamatory towards the housekeepers...). And if in fact the salary had nothing to do with the results and if it is not the expert himself who is questioned but the system of expertise itself? The role played by these experts is indeed very subjective. We have seen it during the Outreau case. But many cases could have instituted a lawsuit: the process is too much interpretative. Are these experts trained to be detached? Why will they not intervene objectively, that is to say without knowing the indictments that motivates their expertise?

In any case, whatever the future of the possible reform of the judicial system, the mediators who intervene and will intervene during the legal proceedings must be perfectly exemplary since they would be unforgivable if they fail of being independent, impartial and neutral, especially because of their training they must have received, which one must insist on these fundamentals.

However, nothing is gained about this position, especially when you can see the non respect of the confidentiality principle by mediators who are clearly improvised...

[edit] Should we Pass Again?

Indeed, it is not unlikely that, thanks to reforms, the role of mediators can be extended to interventions even in penal or criminal areas, regarding the need felt by the victims to interact with accused people.

Mediators, yes, but to let everything pass, we do not say anything and it is clearly one of the current problems: many declare they are mediators, but to have so few voice - and so many fears to get involved in what concerns us as citizens - that we cannot hear them at all...

[edit] Enigma

A famous enigma plays on the concept of lie: "A pilgrim is located at the intersection of two roads, but only one of them leads to the expected destination. Before each road, there is a man who knows the way to take. One of them always says the truth, the other always lies. The traveler is allowed to ask only one question to one of the two guards. What must be the question in order to know with certainty which road to take?"

[edit] Solution

The pilgrim must ask any of the two men "If I ask your friend which way I should take, which road would he show me? The traveler should only follow the other road. Have you understood?

A variant of the solution can be found by clicking here (in French)

Personal tools
WikiMediation Partners
In other languages