In court, suppose for religious (or whatever reasons) you do NOT want to be “sworn in” using the Bible. What do they use as an alternate ? I remember seeing Marlon Brando testifying at his son’s murder trial and remembered Brando refusing the Bible. They did get something else for him to be “sworn in” but I don’t know what it was.
So, what are the alternatives?
I’m not sure of what the exact wording would be for a non-Bible witness but the hammer behind testimony has always been prosecution for perjury.
An athiest friend who has in-court experience told me once that when the time came and he was asked to put his hand on the bible and swear, he always said, “No, but I will affirm it.” That was always accepted by the court (altho it might be argued that he biased his testimony from that action).
I was prepared to do the same when I was in court a few years ago, but a bible did not make an appearance. Instead, I was asked to raise my right hand, and “Do you solemly swear…” so I had no problem with it.
Not only was he an athiest friend, he was also an atheist.
I’ve always wondered why they don’t have you swear on the US Constitution ? (A small book consisting of the Constitution would make it convenient for court use).
It would seem more logical taking the oath on the “law of the land” so to speak.
The one time I had to legally testify I was all geared up to refuse the oath in favor of affirmation on the grounds of separation of church and state (in which I firmly believe.)
No bible was presented and no mention of any god was made in the oath.
I still told the truth.
I remember from Law 12 class that you can affirm to tell the truth, and it’s still just as legally binding.
F_X
I think swearing on the Bible is a bunch of folderol, but I wouldn’t make a fuss about it, expecially in a jury trial. After all, what do I care? I intend to tell the truth as far as I know it anyway and I don’t mind going through the motions.
When you are called as a witness it doesn’t come as a surprise to you. So if I were strongly opposed I would tell the attorney whose witness I was and I’m sure that he could arrange for you make an affirmation without you having to publicly refuse the Bible. That should avoid, or at least lessen, the possibility that some super religious person on the jury would be prejudiced against your testimony.
What would happen if when they said “Do you swear/affirm to tell the truth…” you said “no”? According to m-w.com, perjury is lying after you’ve promised to tell the truth. If I don’t promise to tell the truth, what can be done?
My guess would be: contempt of court.
CurtC got it. The court is entitled to every man’s testimony (with the exception, in the U.S. based off the 5th Amendment, of persons whose testimony may incriminate them). If you are called as a witness and simply refuse to testify, you can be held in contempt of court. This will lead to fines and, if necessary, incarceration until you are willing to testify.
–Cliffy
Does the name Susan McDougal ring any bells?
Just to put it explicitly in this thread, the Constitution gives affirmation as an alternative to swearing in two places:
and
Therefore, this has not been a problem since the very beginning of the United States.
I’m sure that in the eyes of the law this is just splitting hairs, but to me there is a difference between “I refuse to answer that question for no good reason (not 5th amendment)” and “I’ll answer that question, but give no guarantee as to the truthfulness of the answer.”
It’s a difference that makes no difference to the court. You are telling the court that you won’t be giving (or may not be giving) a full and truthful answer. I’m guessing either will directly lead to contempt charges. What is the use of testimony that you have already said is suspect?
So if the baliff says “Do you swear blahblahblah…so help you God”, and you say “I do”, but you don’t believe in god, could you then lie on the stand and later, if caught out, say “well, my oath was invalid because I’m an atheist; therefore, I was free to say whatever I please”?. Sort of a ‘Catch-22 defense’, if you will. It’s an interesting debate issue.
Again, I’m guessing that contempt of court is awaiting the person who tries this.
Telemark: I’m guessing that a perjury charge is awaiting the person who tries it.