Of course the point of the Comfy Chair and Oath is just to remind you that you’re supposed to tell the truth. Normally there’s no need to remind anyone else that they’re supposed to tell the truth–the judge and law-talking guys already know, and everybody else is supposed to shut up unless they’re in the Comfy Chair.
The witness chair is also placed - in a well-designed courtroom, at least - so that the judge, lawyers and jury have a clear line of sight to you, and so that there’s a microphone in front of you to amplify your words, if necessary.
Well, I’m for sure not Unca Cecil, but I’d think the ideal situation would be some sort of swearing-in that any witness would be willing to participate in. That way, no one would be singled out as Different and therefore possibly less trustworthy.
Technically, the oath/affirmation does two things. First, it delineates the point at which you are susceptible to prosecution for perjury. Without the affirmation/oath, you have not agreed to the promise that you will tell the truth. It is your acknowledgment that you know the rules and are abiding by them. Without the oath, one could claim he didn’t realize he was required by law to tell the truth in court. Whether that defense would work is arguable, but it is thinly plausible, whereas actually stating you know you aren’t supposed to lie thoroughly prevents that argument at all. “No, really, when I said I promised to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I didn’t realize that meant I couldn’t lie, too.”
Second, it’s ceremonial. It help conveys to the participants the gravity and importance of the situation.
Atheists swear the way everybody else does:
“Goddamn you, you sorry-assed motherfucking son of a sack of shit!”*
*Not referring to anyone here, of course.
*“You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?”
*
Wow, looks and sounds ridiculous. In Spain we made it simpler: “”**Do you swear or promise ** that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?"
Your answer would be “Yes, I do promise” or “Yes, I do swear”.
What happens if someone answers “No”?
That looks MORE complicated to me.
Then they don’t testify.
This reminds me of when I swore in to become a Peace Corps Volunteer. (Yes, you have to swear an oath in a formal ceremony.) We had two options: you could swear by god, or by the constitution. I didn’t think about it much at the time, but in retrospect it seems a little strange.
You should’ve asked if you could swear on the Necronomicon, then given them the look of death and yelled “WHAT?” When they asked if you were sure it was the PEACE Corps you wanted to join.
Haha, that would have been awesome.
The truth is, though, that we (my whole group, which was like 40 people) swore in at the same time, so no one would have heard it anyway. I could have said “blah blah blah blah blah blah” and it wouldn’t have mattered.
Saying “No” is almost as bad as lying. I served on a jury and was asked that if the defendant did not testify on his own behalf, would that bias my opinion against him. I answered, “Yes, it would indicate to me that he was guilty if he could not defend himself honestly.” The court was short of jurors that day, and they needed bright, honest people like me desperately. So, the judge looked at me sternly and said, “CAN YOU AT LEAST KEEP AN OPEN MIND?” I salvaged enough confidence to say, albeit meekly, “Yes, Sir.”
I wouldn’t want the lecture after saying “No” to telling the truth.
By the way, we, the jurors, found the defendant guilty with open minds and with only 20 minutes of deliberation.
The courts are so liberal, i.e. biased against any type or religion, that if someone just proclaimed to be an atheist, they would likely hear, “Great! You’re our kind of guy! Forget the oath and have a seat. Need a drink or anything?”
IANAL, but both up here and down there if a witness has been subpoenaed and they said No to the oath/affirmation, wouldn’t that be equivalent to a refusal to testify and get you nailed for contempt?
That could ultimately be the outcome, yes. If it happened in my court - it never has, and I’ve never heard of it happening elsewhere - I’d excuse the jury for a few minutes or hold a sidebar conference. I’d ask the witness directly why he was refusing to swear or affirm to tell the truth. If it was just to be ornery, yes, I might hold him in contempt of court. If it was because he didn’t understand what it entailed, I’d explain. If it was because he intended to lie, I’d exclude him as a witness.
Wow! Where do you live? I’m sure glad that the courts here in America aren’t like that!
Neither options are likely to instil the veracity inspired by the Cambodian legal system’s affirmation,
“If I am home, let fire destroy my house for 800 reincarnations; if I am in a boat, let it sink for 800 reincarnations; when I become a ghost, let me eat bloody pus, or swim in boiling chili oil for 800 reincarnations.”
As an Orthodox Jew, I also don’t take to either swearing or affirming “So, help me God” in court. I was a witness to a traffic accident in Texas, and it threw the court into a tizzy because if I wasn’t affirming or swearing I was telling the truth on the name of God, what exactly would keep me from lying?
It came down to me affirming to tell the truth, etc. without the “so help me God” part and the judge questioning me if I understood the penalties for perjury. That I didn’t mind. In fact, I think it’s probably more effective than swearing to God because it makes it much more real. Upsetting God is sort of a wishy-washy thing. Maybe you’ll get hit by lighting. Maybe nothing will happen to you in this life, but you’ll roast marshmallows forever in hell. Or, just maybe God will feel benevolent and forgive you. However, a Texas Judge ain’t so forgiving and merciful. You cross a Texas Judge, and you’ll wish you were in hell.
I am also not too fond of the phrase “In God We Trust” on our money. I take my wallet into the bathroom which isn’t quite a place to exalt the Name of the Lord. In fact, I think quite a few Christians would start to object if they though about it that way too. What about coins and bills that get tossed down a sewer or have people step all over them? Certainly, that’s disrespectful to the name of the Almighty printed on each and every one of them. In fact, how do you feel when the name of God is invoked when someone is purchasing something you consider an outright sin? (Like a cheeseburger?)
I’d rather we change the motto on our coins to something everyone can agree with like “We the People”. That way Atheists, Polytheists, and anyone who cares about the third commandment can all agree.
qazwart said:
Cheeseburger nothin’. How about a lap dance? A blow job? A politician? 
The motto used to be “e pluribus unum”. You can even find that on our money. It means, “One from many”*, i.e. we’re a bunch of diverse individuals forming one group.
- Okay, technically, it is “From many, one”. But that reads awkward in English. The intent is conveyed better in my slightly rearranged version. YMMV, IANAL, Disclaimers etc.