Editor's Note: (Richard Gabriel is President of Decision Analysis, a national trial consulting company. He is the author of "Acquittal: An Insider Reveals the Stories and Strategies Behind Today's Most Infamous Verdicts." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.)
(CNN) Was Donald Trump correct when he said that thousands of Muslims were cheering in Jersey City when the World Trade Center came down on September 11, 2001? Was Hillary Clinton correct when she said the gun industry was the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability? Was Carly Fiorina correct when she said that a Planned Parenthood video showed a living, kicking fetus with someone saying, "We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain"?
The answer to all three is of course not.
Yet, there were no consequences to the candidates for these untrue and misleading words. The question we should ask is -- why not? Would these presidential candidates have said these things if they had to swear to them under penalty of perjury?
In a court of law, lawyers are officers of the court and have a professional responsibility to not misstate the law or mislead the court. This applies to them 24/7 in all of their activities, not just when they practice law. Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton lost their law licenses for their conduct in office and not because of anything they did as practicing attorneys. While attorneys do not have the greatest reputation among the American public, their peers and judges often hold them accountable if they make misrepresentations.
In a court of law, an attorney has to submit both evidence and law that is relevant to their case. If they misstate the facts or law, a judge can sanction them with fines, limit or even dismiss their case. They can be subject to disciplinary action and even lose their license to practice law if the infraction is severe.
In a court of law, witnesses who lie or knowingly misrepresents facts or their expertise can be subject to contempt of court ruling and prosecuted for perjury, potentially incurring fines or even jail time.
Why don't we have the same standards for our presidential candidates?
First Amendment rights are absolute when it comes to political speech, and we want candidates to speak freely about the issues. However, a candidate is not just a citizen; he or she aspires to be the commander of an entire nation. As representatives who aspire to lead our country, their comments prompt national dialogue on war, the environment, and health care. They shape public opinion on important issues and when they are on the stump discussing their policy positions, their words should be held to the highest standard of truth.
Donald Trump should be held accountable for his position on Muslims. Hillary Clinton should be accountable for her position on guns, and Carly Fiorina should be accountable for her statements about Planned Parenthood. As in a court of law, they should have to prove their case and be responsible for the accuracy of their evidence.
They are officers in the court of public opinion and should have attendant responsibilities as a prospective representative. This is not to say that a candidate cannot frame a statement as their belief. When Donald Trump says he can shoot someone and not lose voters or when Ben Carson says that he thinks that Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to this country since slavery, they are stating their opinions, no matter how extreme or bizarre their beliefs may be.
In our current field of presidential candidates, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Martin O'Malley and Rick Santorum are all lawyers. All are bound by ethical rules and professional responsibilities, whether they are in the courtroom or on the campaign trail.
But even though the other candidates are not lawyers, why shouldn't all those seeking office not only be held up to a professional code of conduct, but to the standard of a sworn witness in a court of law?
When Ted Cruz says he lost his health care because of Obamacare or Bernie Sanders says that "almost all" polls suggest he would be a stronger candidate against the Republicans than Hillary Clinton, voters take these as statements of fact. And voters, just like jurors, are relying on the accuracy of candidates' statements to make an informed choice that is at the very heart of their citizenship.
The significant increase in the whoppers being told this political season indicates that candidates feel they can say almost anything with impunity because they face little or no consequence for their misstatements, half-truths, or outright lies.
Rather than lose credibility, some of the candidates "double down" on their comments and have actually experienced poll bumps for their extreme and inaccurate statements. Campaign strategists, political consultants, and think tanks for both parties are relying on social science and propaganda research to further the cynical view that truth need not matter in the political arena.
A social science study published last year on the "illusory truth effect" in the Journal for Experimental Psychology has shown that even when we know something is false, if we hear it repeated enough times, we start to believe it is true. We demand professional standards from doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers and even real estate agents. The NFL and NBA have the power to fine, suspend and even ban players for bad conduct, both on and off the court.
Why can't we have a set of standards and a code of conduct for our elected officials? While an actual legislative system to review and sanction candidates for their statements is untenable and probably unconstitutional, we the public should demand an "under oath" and "qualified or unqualified" report card standard for those running for office.
With an estimated $5 billion that will be spent on the 2016 election season, we have commoditized our candidates, polishing and packaging them as products so that their commercials, debates and social media feeds blend into the information environment of television series, car commercials, and fast-food ads. With candidates hurling accusations at each other and vying for prime media stage time, it's easy to dismiss their lies as part of the political theater.
Our resignation and cynicism has cost us dearly as we see a steady erosion of public trust for our elected representatives. In a Pew Research Center poll conducted last November, only 29% of respondents said they would describe elected officials as honest. In a Gallup poll conducted in June of last year, only 8% of the public stated that they had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress. Routinely, Politifact, FactCheck and other news organization rate the statements of our politicians as "Half True," "Mostly False," and "Pants on Fire."
Our choice of a new president should inspire trust in our leaders. By accepting false or even partially true statements, we are selling our elected officials, our political process, and ourselves short. Let's not turn this "fact optional" election season into our new norm. We should be more engaged and more vigilant with our national conversations.
Even if we can't formally regulate political speech, we should set standards and tell the candidates that we consider everything they say to be an oath for which they will be held accountable. Only then will we get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.
Read CNNOpinion's Flipboard magazine.