I think this was the original reason behind the religious prohibition against swearing: You shouldn’t swear that you’ll tell the truth under some circumstances, because that implies that you won’t tell the truth under some other circumstances. Rather, you should “let your yes be yes and your no be no” under all circumstances.
Which makes the “affirmation” work-around rather silly. It’s still the same silly little ritual, just with the word “swear” replaced by “affirm”, and an objection to the fact that it’s a silly ritual is still just as valid.
Interesting. I haven’t been in courts in New Jersey, but I have noticed East, particularly the North East has kept more “traditional” court procedures. The furthest I’ve been into the Bible Belt is Kentucky. No Bibles in court there either, but to be admitted to practice there I had to swear I have never been in a duel.
Seen many, many people sworn in to testify in state and federal courts, have done so myself, even, but I don’t remember anybody with their hand actually on a Bible.
When I was called for jury duty, iirc we were all asked to raise our right hand and say “yes” in response to a inquiry that went something like, “Do you swear or affirm that the statements you are about to make are true to the best of your knowledge?”. So you could choose in your mind whether you were swearing or affirming without needing to make a fuss in court.
Still, I wonder why they even bother with the empty ritual. It’s a sham that they even ask a witness if he promises to tell the truth (never mind whether you call that swearing or affirming). The witness has no choice but to agree.
They might just as well cut the theater and have the judge simply tell each witness straight-up: “You are REQUIRED to tell the truth under penalty of perjury”.
There is one fundamental problem with that theory - the statute on benefit of clergy (4 Hen. VII, c. 13) specified that the brand should be applied to the left thumb.
Swearing on a Bible (or other holy book) is still standard practice in Britain (though sleazy nonbelievers can get away with affirming that they’ll tell the truth).
Side note: one of my favorite courtroom dramas, “Witness For The Prosecution” was on TV last night and witnesses were both doing the hand on the Bible thing and reading their oath off a piece of paper (while in some cases lying their asses off). What a great movie. U.S. courts are missing out by not having the attorneys and judge wear wigs. It’d add a little class to the proceedings.
I have testified in court twice in the last two decades, in Tennessee and in Oregon. Both times, they judge asked me to raise my right hand and say that testimony I was about to give would be true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I never saw a bible.
I’ve always had a fantasy that some day I’d be called into court and they’d tell me to put my hand on the bible and I’d say “Excuse me, can I borrow that for a sec? Thanks.” and turn to the Matthew 5:34-37 where it says never make any oaths but merely let your Yes be Yes and your No be No and read that verse out loud. Then watch the judge’s head explode. Sadly, this remains just a fantasy for me.
If you watch the movie carefully, you’ll see that when Christine is in the witness box, everything she says is the truth. She merely says it in such a way that everyone thinks she’s lying (which is just what she wanted them to think) but the court has absolutely no case against her for perjury because not a single word of her testimony was false.
NO Consequences, period, I am sure all states have similar provisions/words of similar import.
Ohio;
3.20 Oath and affirmation.
When an oath is required or authorized by law, an affirmation in lieu thereof may be taken by a person having conscientious scruples against taking an oath. An affirmation has the same effect as an oath.
3.21 Form of oath.
Subject to any section of the Revised Code that prescribes the form of an oath, a person may be sworn in any form the person deems binding on the person’s conscience.
Nothing wrong with that, it is just ritual, but the point is make sure the witness is aware that he must tell the truth or be subject to perjury charges. I don’t see how that’s different than the judge asking me to “swear of affirm” that I tell the truth, and I respond by saying “I so affirm.”. The judge wouldn’t just tell a witness to tell the truth and not wait for an affirmative response.
It seems to me that it’s the other way around - swearing an oath on a Bible is silly, if not sacrilegious, when one can affirm instead. Why invoke the wrath of G-d when a believer is already expected to follow the exhortation to “let your yes be yes and your no be no”? If followers of the Abrahamic faiths (I can’t speak for those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Elder Gods) are already bound by their faith to speak the truth, why should it be necessary to do anything but state this?
With regard to the OP: I had jury duty in the past year or so, and no one swore on a Bible. It was all “swear or affirm, etc.”
Johnny_Rebellion, it is against the rules to insult other posters outside the Pit. It is also rather pointless to insult people for remarks made seven years ago. I suggest you read the rules and lurk for a while before posting again, or your career here will be short. This is closed.