Under Oath

[Bells]

So, in this day and age... do you guys feel any weight to be "under oath". Be in Court or out of it, it's more honor bound than anything.

You know pretty well that Lawyers and pretty much any one on the legal system is quite often pushed more to Win than to get fair reasoning. Specially if you know you have a decent shot at "loosing" a case.

So, what weight to you think there is in to be "Under Oath"? Would you be compeled to be Truthfull (even if it hurts you) under oath ?

[Shyria Dracnoir]

Yes, on the off chance that this would be the one in a million time fair reasoning would actually win out in a case. Someone has to try and fix the system, after all. Besides, my own conscience would never forgive itself if I did.

[Krylo]

In the US lying under oath is perjury and illegal, with a prison sentence of up to five years.

Also, this is why the fifth amendment exists. No one needs to choose between lying under oath and saying something that hurts them.

[bluestarultor]

That's pretty much what being under oath is supposed to mean. There are extra penalties for lying under oath, IIRC. Plus, it makes you look like a total bastard. Pretty much any jury in the world would crucify a guy who lied under oath. It's the difference between "We the jury find the defendant guilty" and "We the jury find the defendant guilty and recommend the harshest punishment under the law."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well, being a semantic dick for a second, I would affirm rather than oath. The real problem is that once I've done that I reckon the jury just going to ignore my testimony cause they'll be like "why doesn't he want to take an oath!".
But yeah, no real reason to lie.
Are lawyers really that vicious and inclined towards sophistry and even lies? Like that's what they pull on tv, no idea how much they pull in real life.

[Gregness]

Okay, I'm not sure if this is where Bells was going with this, but I think perhaps a more interesting question is whether you still feel that "A man's word is his bond" (no disrespect to the ladies, but that's the addage).

I take great pains to never make promises unless I'm prepared to do everything in my power to make good on them, and it's a point of pride for me that I've never broken a promise I've made to someone. This isn't to say that I've never lied, as I'm no paladin. For example, I don't see anything wrong with deception used against one's enemies, but if someone's earned my trust I do my damnedest to be straight up with them.

Though, I'm guilty of not telling the whole truth at times. I got grounded one semester in high school for bad grades, but was still allowed to do my after school music classes (Mom's very supportive of music education). However, when our rehearsal schedule got a bit lighter, I didn't mention anything to my mom and hung out with my friends instead. I was careful to always be home at an appropriate post rehearsal time and she was none the wiser.

I think if she'd flat out asked me that I would have come clean though...

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

I once had to give testimony in court when I was like, 16 or something. I was told before going in that I'd be able to swear on this particular oath (dunno what it's was actually called now), not the usual religious one that courts here make you swear on normally for some reason. Then when I actually got in there they told me I had it wrong and I had to swear on the catholic holy holy god is great oath and was in fact, forced to swear on that oath.

I don't think they realised what a massive athiest I actually am, and therefore all of my testimony from then on was pretty much meaningless. I still told the truth obviously, but I could have made up all kinds of bullshit and gotten away with it.

So yeah, I don't really see the point of it.

[Aerozord]

couldn't hurt, I mean yea doesn't keep most people from lying but not like it makes them either. Really I think its more tradition and custom then anything.

Remember what I was told in my law class. Its all an act, the entire trial for the people and the jury and to a lesser extent the judge. The lawyers know who all the witnesses are, what their testimony is, and what the opposition is going to object to.

Not to say its meaningless, its still presenting your case, showing evidence, explaining your side. Things like the oath are for the sake of the outside observer. No one is fooling themselves into thinking it actually prevents them from lying, but they like to think that it does, or atleast puts some pressure on them not to

[Magus]

I once had to give testimony in court when I was like, 16 or something. I was told before going in that I'd be able to swear on this particular oath (dunno what it's was actually called now), not the usual religious one that courts here make you swear on normally for some reason. Then when I actually got in there they told me I had it wrong and I had to swear on the catholic holy holy god is great oath and was in fact, forced to swear on that oath.

I don't think they realised what a massive athiest I actually am, and therefore all of my testimony from then on was pretty much meaningless. I still told the truth obviously, but I could have made up all kinds of bullshit and gotten away with it.

So yeah, I don't really see the point of it.

Are you from the U.K.?

I believe the only difference between the two here in the United States is the phrase "so help you God" is added to the end. So it goes "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", and then they added "so help you God" onto it in certain jurisdictions. The difference is the difference between an oath and an affirmation:


Various religious groups have objected to the taking of oaths, most notably the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and Mennonites. This is principally based on Matthew 5:34-37, the Antithesis of the Law. Here, Christ is written to say "I say to you: 'Swear not at all'". The Apostle James stated in James 5:12, "Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned." Beyond this scriptural authority, Quakers place importance on being truthful at all times, so the testimony opposing oaths springs from a view that "taking legal oaths implies a double standard of truthfulness...."[6]

Not all Christians understand this reading as forbidding all types of oaths, however. Opposition to oath-taking among some groups of Christian caused many problems for these groups throughout their history. Quakers were frequently imprisoned because of their refusal to swear loyalty oaths. Testifying in court was also difficult; George Fox, Quakers' founder, famously challenged a judge who had asked him to swear, saying that he would do so once the judge could point to any Bible passage where Jesus or his apostles took oaths. (The judge could not, but this did not allow Fox to escape punishment.) Legal reforms from the 18th century onwards mean that everyone in the United Kingdom now has the right to make a solemn affirmation instead of an oath. The United States has permitted affirmations since it was founded; it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Only two US Presidents, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover (who was a Quaker), have chosen to affirm rather than swear at their inaugurations.

It's kind of like the pledge of allegiance thing where "under God" was added in back in the '50s. It doesn't mean that people weren't pledging allegiance to the United States prior to that. Atheists usually have a problem with the religious phrase added into it, not the pledge itself, which would be separate from atheism. I don't think it's meaningless to tell the truth or not even if you are asked to swear on God or something by a court system apparently unable to come up with a secular oath. It's possible to have morals without being religious, obviously, so it would still be morally imperative to not lie in a trial if you take the oath.

Here in the U.S., the ability to deliver an affirmation instead of the oath is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution so it makes no sense when people decry the removal of "so help you God" from the oath in various courts as some kind of anti-religious movement in the country. It's been in place from the beginning to allow affirmation for religious reasons (for example, Quakers would not give the oath but would instead give the affirmation, as they don't believe in oaths. And I don't think anybody can accuse Quakers of being non-religious).

I believe what you may be referring to is the difference between the Oath, Affirmation, and Promise in the U.K.? If you are from the U.K. this may shed light on it:


Oath:

I swear by [substitute Almighty God/Name of God (such as Allah) or the name of the holy scripture] that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Affirmation

I do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Promise

I promise before Almighty God that the evidence which I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


People 17 and over can choose between the Oath or the Affirmation, but for some reason there is no secular version of the Promise. Since you were 16 you had to say the Promise which doesn't have a secular version for some reason I can't figure out, since they have one for adults.

If you were in the U.S. I guess they weren't using the one from the movies where you were brought into testify, since it's always like the one I mentioned before, they must be using the U.K. version.

Anyway, like I said, I think it's important to testify truthfully in court. Unfortunately, people can be subpoenaed to testify whether they want to or not, and be forced to take the oath whether they want to or not. So the oath becomes rather meaningless if the person is being forced to give the testimony, as perjury laws make it illegal to lie on the stand. Whether you take the oath or not your hands are pretty much tied, so the oath is rendered meaningless.

Personally, I would treat it as important and wouldn't lie. There are usually laws in place preventing spouses from being forced to testify on each other, anyway, though I don't think it extends to immediate family such as sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, etc. as it probably should, since forcing people to commit perjury to not witness againts their loved ones doesn't really help anybody, you get false testimony most of the time, the person breaks their oath, and can be prosecuted for perjury.

[Aerozord]

actually that does raise a very good point. Swearing to God to tell the truth is kind of stupid when lying in and of itself is already a mortal sin. If they cared about divine punishment then they would be honest anyways

[Magus]

You guys are aware that "mortal v. venial sins" is mostly a Catholic thing and that Protestants don't necessarily think they're going to hell if they lie, even if they do consider it a sin, right? Like that there are hundreds of Christian denominations who all think different things about sin and the repercussions thereof, whether they only effect the saved in this mortal life versus affecting the saved in the hereafter, and so on?

Just thought I'd interject that there are various and differing beliefs on the subject and so this "leveling" being done on the subject of Christians kind of misses the massive nuances in Christianity.

EDIT: I only say that because Aerozord and parts of Hawk's responses seemed to miss the nuances in belief that exist, mildly. Not really to start any discussion in that particular direction since this topic is supposed to be about personal interpretations of the truth oath.

[Aerozord]

EDIT: I only say that because Aerozord and parts of Hawk's responses seemed to miss the nuances in belief that exist, mildly. Not really to start any discussion in that particular direction since this topic is supposed to be about personal interpretations of the truth oath.

didn't miss it just, raised catholic so, you know, that perspective

[Oron]

I always saw the oath as a verbal contract of sorts, as in "Do you agree to only present factual truth to the court or face the consequences should the court determine you have presented false statements/evidence?"

So saying "I do," basically means "Yes, I will tell the truth, and I accept that I will face punishment at the hands of the court should I commit perjury and be discovered."

So do people outright lie in court? I don't know.

I'm sure many attorneys will bend the truth to an insane degree to dilute the facts and twist the trial in their client's favor.

I wouldn't ever lie (I hope) if I were summoned to a trial. But I can't determine beforehand what kind of trial I would ever be involved in, who's on trial, what the stakes are, etc. etc.

I don't know, some people might regard what happens to the defendant differently than how they would regard any personal sense of honor.

So... eh, maybe?

[Aldurin]

hey, the guy on the other side of the courtroom lied, why can't I?

[Magus]

hey, the guy on the other side of the courtroom lied, why can't I?

1. How would you determine this as true?

2. Even if true, wouldn't this be bringing yourself down to his level?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

actually that does raise a very good point. Swearing to God to tell the truth is kind of stupid when lying in and of itself is already a mortal sin. If they cared about divine punishment then they would be honest anyways

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. James 5:12

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

snip

Yeah, I'm from the UK. I guess that wiki article explains it then. I have no idea why they don't have a secular version of the promise either though, seems like it would be a good idea and it's hardly the most difficult thing in the world to intorduce it.

I just found it quite amusing at the time that I was swearing on the name of god when I don't even believe in god. Just another thing to add to the stupidity of my country I guess.

[Yrcrazypa]

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. James 5:12

I'm not very good at the whole Bible-speech thing, but doesn't that basically say that you aren't supposed to swear an oath on the Bible?

If so, that's pretty amusing to me.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

I'm not very good at the whole Bible-speech thing, but doesn't that basically say that you aren't supposed to swear an oath on the Bible?

If so, that's pretty amusing to me.

Isn't there also a bit somewhere about not passing judgement on anyone else too? Because in that case you shouldn't even be testifying, never mind swearing on the bible that what you're testifying is true. Or maybe that just applies for jury duty.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm not very good at the whole Bible-speech thing, but doesn't that basically say that you aren't supposed to swear an oath on the Bible?

If so, that's pretty amusing to me.

That is pretty much exactly what it says.

Isn't there also a bit somewhere about not passing judgement on anyone else too? Because in that case you shouldn't even be testifying, never mind swearing on the bible that what you're testifying is true. Or maybe that just applies for jury duty.

Do not judge or you too will be judged- Matthew 7:1

[Amake]

I find it interesting what you all think of this topic because I can't lie.

But it also means all I can add is that in the fantastical scenario where this disability is recognized by law, I can't actually speak in court. The right to lie under oath, at least as far as I understand the US judicial system, is considered so important that anything you say under the influence of something that impairs your ability to lie freely, such as if you're brainwashed or high on drugs, is inadmissible in court. I think it's specified in some arcane law meant to protect free will. Which I find funny.

Cause, you know, anyone who takes that oath seriously will be compelled to tell the truth. The oath by its very nature is designed to limit free will, to keep people from lying and ascertain the truth. But if it can be absolutely determined that a person is bound by their oath, if we know for a fact that they are telling the truth, then their words are legally void.

[Magus]

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. James 5:12

Yeah, this is why, as I mentioned, the Quakers wouldn't swear the oath in court and England's judges were all like, "Man you gonna go to jail son" and they decided to head to Pennsylvania. Luckily here in the Constitution they put the affirmation into place for people who can't swear oaths, so I'm assuming the Quakers are fine with saying the affirmation...not sure though.