Is oath breaking a crime?

Factual Questions
21

There still is a thing called breach of contract. What has–or may have–changed over time (and also varying by jurisdiction) is what promises the law will consider to be a legally enforceable contract. For instance, promising to give someone a hundred dollars for having been such a good child is unlikely to be considered legally enforceable. On the other hand, promising someone a hundred dollars if they mow your lawn, and then seeing that person mow your lawn, is likely to be considered a legally enforceable promise (a contract), the breach of which would entitled the lawn-mower to legal remedy.

So, “breach of contract” has not gone away as a legal cause of action. But whether or not a marriage proposal is considered to be such a legally enforceable contract is another matter.

22

The action for damages taken by a woman agaisnt a man who had jilted her was an action for “breach of promise”, not “breach of contract”, though I think in the commentaries it was generally analysed as a species of breach of contract.

23

The Supreme Court said that police have no duty to protect you (general “you”). See: Castle Rock v. Gonzales (heartbreaking case)

Note that oaths do not seem to figure in to it. Basically nothing puts police on the hook. Not a job description or oath or anything really. You just pay them and hope a sense of duty will motivate them.

Your tax dollars at work.

24

They said that the police have no duty to protect you that is imposed by the US Constitution. States are free to impose a duty to protect through their own laws, enforced through their own courts, and some do.

25

This brings to mind the specific characteristics of a contract, and why few (if any) of what we would consider to be an oath, of the type apparently contemplated by the OP, would qualify as a contract and be enforceable under such terms.

A contract presupposes an exchange, usually goods or services for money, or for other goods or services. There are burdens of delivery on both sides of the contract. There are, of course, unequal burdens (e.g. those terms-of-service agreements that say “we agree to provide you with this product, and in turn you agree to abide by the following 97 pages of microscopic legalese”), but both parties are required to follow through on some sort of obligation.

The typical oath, however, burdens only one party. “I, insert name here, promise to observe the following rules and protocols, full stop.” In cases where the oath is a precondition for membership in some organization, you could argue that there is an exchange, to wit, the organization is agreeing to allow you to join the group, but that, it seems to me, is a fairly intangible deliverable, and besides it’s usually accompanied by dues and fees.

The point is, when we think of an oath, it generally constitutes, in large part if not entirely, a one-way promise on the part of the oath taker. And for that reason, I don’t see any reasonable way it could be considered enforceable as a form of contract law.

As noted elsewhere in the thread, there are certainly organizations, such as the military, that formalize the oath in such a way as to create a legally enforceable standard. But they’re certainly the exception to the norm.

26

Fine.

Per the OP their oath does not seem to impart any duty.

Which makes you wonder that the SCOTUS justices need not adhere to their oaths. Just empty words.

27

This may be the crux of the question. Much as being under oath being a conduit to perjury. It isn’t any oath that is enforced, but there are laws that incorporate the act of taking a specific oath as part of the mechanism by which you become bound by that law. So, giving evidence under oath, military service, once you have taken the oath, that becomes the enabler by which you essentially place yourself under the scope of that law. So, from the point of view of public office, one wonders, if you didn’t take the oath appropriate to that office, would you be legally considered as occupying that office? If you can’t occupy it without taking the oath, and if there are specific laws that bind the officeholder, again, that oath must be considered as part of enabling those laws to apply. But the oath might not actually reference the requirements of those laws. At least least not directly.
So, if you cant be a police officer without taking an oath, and there are specific laws that govern the behaviour of police officers, that oath enabled the application of those laws. Not the same as breaking an oath being itself punishable, but the effect becomes similar.

It reminds me of things like the Official Secrets Act that existed in the UK, and similar legislation in other countries. People with an appropriate clearance are required to sign a statement that they understand they are subject to the act. Not that they were not subject to it before signing, but it reminds them of the act and their responsibilities wrt it. Having a signed statement on file probably makes any weaselling about intent much more clear if someone was to do something stupid.

28

Here is the New Jersey Statute

2C:28-2. False swearing
a. False swearing. A person who makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made, when he does not believe the statement to be true, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

  b.  Perjury provisions applicable.    Subsections c. and d. of section 2C:28-1 apply to the present section.

  c.  Inconsistent statements.    Where the defendant made inconsistent statements under oath or equivalent affirmation, both having been made within the period of the statute of limitations, the prosecution may proceed by setting forth the inconsistent statements in a single count alleging in the alternative that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant. In such case it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove which statement was false but only that one or the other was false and not believed by the defendant to be true.

As a County Detective, I was empowered by law to issue an oath before taking a statement from a witness or suspect. There was a threat, either implicit or explicit, that the person would be charged under the statute if they lied under oath. I never heard of anyone being charged, even if it was clear they were lying.

29

The necessity of an oath appears to be kinda-true. On a federal level, it appears that’s the traditional definition, but since 1976 written statements don’t need an oath
(from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf, formatting modified by me)

False Writings as Perjury Generally (18 U.S.C. § 1621(2))
Congress added Section 1621(2) to the general perjury statute in 1976 in order to dispense with the necessity of an oath for various certifications and declarations.68
Section 1621(2) states:
I. Whoever in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement
under penalty of perjury as permitted under [Section] 1746 of title 28, United States Code,
III. willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true is guilty of perjury

It’s a bit redundant, since lying to the feds is already a crime under a separate section, but looks like perjury (on a federal level) is possible without any oath.

30

Not surprising given that the first police department in the US wasn’t established until 1844.

That is a very misunderstood case which is often used by those with anti-police leanings to show the police can do what they want. The case is specifically about the due process clause which was attempted to be used where no process was established. The constitution does not lay out specific legal processes pertaining to state laws. That’s up to state legislatures. That doesn’t mean the police are exempt from following due process it just means the US constitution did not establish what due process was in that case. State laws are full of instructions to police that specifically state when they “shall” act and when they “may” act.

When it comes to taking the oath as a police officer I know of no laws against breaking it. Although each oath is different depending on the department they Are all basically a promise to uphold the law and follow rules and regulations of the department. Breaking the law will get you arrested and not following procedures will get you fired. There is no need to have some law as vague as breaking an oath. The closest thing may be official misconduct but that’s a bit more specific in what it entails.

31

For those newly minted physicians who still take the Hippocratic Oath (which is not all of them by a long shot), there are no criminal penalties for violating the Oath, though some shenanigans might lead to legal liability if proscribed by criminal laws.

For instance, I haven’t heard of any colleagues being prosecuted for violating this part of the Hippocratic Oath:

“ἡγήσεσθαι μὲν τὸν διδάξαντά με τὴν τέχνην ταύτην ἴσα γενέτῃσιν ἐμοῖς, καὶ βίου κοινώσεσθαι, καὶ χρεῶν χρηΐζοντι μετάδοσιν ποιήσεσθαι, καὶ γένος τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοῖς ἴσον ἐπικρινεῖν ἄρρεσι, καὶ διδάξειν τὴν τέχνην ταύτην, ἢν χρηΐζωσι μανθάνειν, ἄνευ μισθοῦ καὶ συγγραφῆς, παραγγελίης τε καὶ ἀκροήσιος καὶ τῆς λοίπης ἁπάσης μαθήσιος μετάδοσιν ποιήσεσθαι υἱοῖς τε ἐμοῖς καὶ τοῖς τοῦ ἐμὲ διδάξαντος, καὶ μαθητῇσι συγγεγραμμένοις τε καὶ ὡρκισμένοις νόμῳ ἰητρικῷ, ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐδενί.”*

*this is the part that has to do with making your teacher your partner and sharing your dough with him.

32

So…are you saying the plaintiff did not use the right complaint and that police do, in fact, have a duty here or are police free to ignore you (legally)?

33

Someone can make this in more lawyer speak but basically the court found there was no due process claim because Colorado law did not specify any mandatory actions by police with regards to restraining orders. When there is no specified process there isn’t a due process violation. There is no overriding federal constitutional authority dictating what the due process is in this case. That does not mean it can’t or shouldn’t be done at the state level. What happens frequently is case law is made when the original laws are poorly written or ambiguous.

The domestic violence laws in my state are pretty strict and unambiguous. They are full of “shalls” aimed toward officer. Discretion is taken away in many cases. Cops know the easiest way to lose their job is to not follow the domestic violence laws. Our current law was written in 1991, long before Castle Rock. If the situation in Castle Rock happened in NJ the outcome of the case would have been much different and most likely it would never have reached the Supreme Court. I have no idea if Colorado changed their law after that.

34

Should point out this whole discussion is irrelevant to the OP. No one was talking about the police being criminally liable for failing to uphold their oath and protect the woman in question. If the case had gone the other way the police would have been civilly liable and had to pay damages to her next of kin, the officers wouldn’t have been sent to prison.

Similarly for the breach of contract for calling off engagement, weird as it sounds to modern ears marriage and betrothal has historically been considered a commercial contract, and enforced like one. But it was a civil not criminal matter.

35

So is this the case? In military law can you be prosecuted for breaking your oath even if the way you break it does not involve committing a specific crime? I would definitely consider that answering the OP if it was.

36

Which article of the UCMJ says you are committing a crime only for breaking your oath? If the oath were enough for prosecution there would be no need to have separate articles for things like disobeying a lawful order. You can point to certain articles of the UCMJ and say they cover what is in the oath but they would not need to exist if all that was needed is the oath taken. The oath of enlistment, or more accurately the signature on the contract that contains the oath, is an acknowledgement that you are now under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. The oath itself is too broad to have punitive measures attached. That’s where the punitive articles of the UCMJ come in.

37

Well if it were a thing (I’m not saying it is, that was a genuine question) I’d assume it would work the same way perjury and obstruction of justice is often used (and seemingly dumb questions on government forms like “have you earned income from drugs” and “have you committed genocide.”) Where you can’t prove someone committed the crime you think they are guilty of, but you can show they lied under oath (or just lied on a form where it is illegal to do so) so you settle for that.

38

Oddly, the UCMJ does still appear to have a “false swearing” provision under Article 134 (the general article, very much a catch all for otherwise unlisted offenses). And this is distinct from perjury, which is covered under article 131.

One of the elements is “That the oath or equivalent was administered to the accused in a matter in which such oath or equivalent was required or authorized by law;” but, again, the provision for false swearing is supposed to be distinct from perjury.

I guess the question would be… what do they mean by “required or authorized by law”?

https://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/ucmj/UCMJ_Article134_General_Article.pdf#page=17

But like perjury, it seems to be about lies, not just any particular breach of an oath (such as to abstain from certain conduct).

39

Perjury, under Article 131, specifically applies to false statements as part of a judicial proceeding. Article 134 covers other false statements under oath.

For example, SF86, the standard questionnaire for security clearances, is filled out under a written oath. Your answers on the SF86 can’t actually be used against you in a judicial or disciplinary proceeding, but lying on it is a criminal offense.

40

What I mean is, the SF86 has questions about previous drug use and criminal activity. If you admit to such on the SF86, that admission can’t be used against you. But you can be charged with lying under oath if you falsely deny such activity on the SF86.