Do you really imagine that hardened criminals go into the dock terrified that if they lie on oath, ‘god’ will strike them down? (Or ever have done?) The origin of Oath acknowledged that everybody was lying in their own cause: you invoked every god you could think of, and so did the other side, and then you produced anything up to 36 ‘oath-helpers’ to affirm that what you said really was true. After all, if you were a persistent nuisance lying your head off, you wouldn’t find 36 people who wanted you still around!
The ancient gods, Teutonic or Classical weren’t especially given to truth more than bribery either. Thor will support my cause, I sacrificed a horse to him: Woden won’t, he’s jealous.
What courts were you in? And what does it mean to be “biased against any type”? And even if it made sense, if you’re “biased against any type,” at least you’re fair to all.
To get back to the current topic . . . The Federal Rules of Evidence, governing federal courts (naturally), have some interesting provisions:
Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation: “Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so.”
(No requirement that the witness express fear of brimstone and perpetual torment.)
Another provision that isn’t widely known (even, I’m afraid, by some lawyers): Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions: “Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness’ credibility is impaired or enhanced.”
Apart from court proceedings, another provision not widely known is Article VI, section 3 of the US Constitution:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Anyone want to bet that if you circulated a petition seeking to amend the Constitution to add the above language to it, you’d get way less than 50% support? And that a good number of the people refusing to sign would say that adding that provision would be un-American?
“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.” - George Washington, 1790
It wasn’t all that long ago that testimony by defendants (at least in capital cases) was forbidden outright.
But it has been a long, long time since the only kind of trial there was (even in criminal cases, before the invention of the legal fiction that a crime is a tort against the sovereignty) involved only the testimony of a plaintiff and a defendant, and witnesses may wish to lie for other reasons than interest, or any other sort of favoritism. Consider the witness who can convict or free a man accused of murder, but only if he admits that he was visiting a brothel at the time…
“So I was in the alley behind the dumpster getting a blowjob from a crack whore ($20 - she looked like shit, but it felt good, and that’s all that matters), and that’s when I saw the defendant shoot the victim.”
When time came to take the oath for the Canadian Armed Forces, they offered us the choice of bible-swearing or solemnly affirming. I chose the latter though if I’d been required to do the former, I’d’ve just played along.
First of all, notice that this column was from 28 years ago. The writer was from California. Things have changed since then. When I was sworn into the jury in the Bay Area a couple of years ago the oath had no mention of God, and jurors weren’t even given the opportunity to mention God. I don’t think witnesses were either, but I don’t recall it so well. The threat was the law, not eternal damnation, and I suspect it worked a bit better.
BTW, here is the jury oath in California, from this site.
Some years ago I got a speeding ticket, and as part of clearing it (pleading “no contest”, getting drivers ed), I had to swear a statement, IIRC something about not having another driving violation that wasn’t yet on my record or some such. The important point is that the oath that was administered ended with “so help me God”. When the clerk read that out, “Do you solemnly swear… so help you God?”, I replied, “Everything but that last bit.” She accepted it as a valid oath, as it was intended.
You honestly expect a legal type to use an older, one-syllable, Anglo-Saxon word word like “put” (questions put to you) which is understood by 99.9% of English speakers, when he could use a three-syllable, latinate word like “propound” that perhaps half the English-speaking population could not define?
The fact is, most people nowadays (maybe it was different in ancient days when people thought illness and lightning strikes and such were acts of angry gods) will not be any more hesitant to lie on account of having been made to swear to God that they wouldn’t.
Incidentally, when I had jury duty our oath had about 40 people simultaneously respond when asked if we agreed to be sworn in. Not everyone responded the exact same way (some saying “yes”, others saying “I do” for instance), and we weren’t told to follow that with “I swear” or something else, just a simple affirmative. In fact I doubt anyone would have noticed if didn’t respond and swear themself in.
