Do you have to swear on the bible in court?

Cabaal

We've all seen it throughout the years, people swearing on bibles in law & order and the like saying they'll tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help them god.

I've not been to a Irish court so not sure if its done in Ireland so the question is, do you have to swear on a bible in the Irish system?

If you do, what happens if you refuse on the basis that you don't believe in it? (not forgetting what happens if a Muslim etc goes to court)

Mountjoy Mugger

You affirm.

Kinski

AFAIK bible is the default option, but you can go with an oath if you're non-religious. You couldn't really ask a Hindu or a Jewish witness to swear on the bible, could you, so why insist a non-believer do so?

Edit: ah, affirm, that's it, as per post above.

Cabaal

Kinski wrote: »

You couldn't really ask a Hindu or a Jewish witness to swear on the bible, could you, so why insist a non-believer do so?

Edit: ah, affirm, that's it, as per post above.

I figured there had to be an other option or it just would have turned into silly season when it comes to other faiths,

zenbuffy

I recently had jury duty, and though I wasn't picked, saw other juries sworn in. A much larger proportion of people than I expected chose to affirm rather than swear on the bible, so I guess it's not even an unusual request any more (unless I just happened to be in with a particularly heathen-filled bunch of potential jurors!)

magicbastarder

can you bring in your own book to swear on?

SebBerkovich

magicbastarder wrote: »

can you bring in your own book to swear on?

Probably, but then you've got the problem of which Twilight book you'd choose? It's better the government has chosen it's own preferred fiction, save you from an impossible choice.

Gbear

It's a bit bizarre that you have to make any oath at all.
It seems a bit superfluous.

Bit of an archaic tradition. I suppose it goes with the territory in the court room.
It's going to need to be updated sooner or later.

Dades

There was a feisty discussion about this recently...

Starting here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83309435#post83309435

Miss Lockhart

I was called as a witness in the district court a few years ago and I affirmed. There was no problem and I'm surprised to hear others have had an issue. Nobody batted an eyelid when I asked.

magicbastarder

Gbear wrote: »

It's a bit bizarre that you have to make any oath at all.
It seems a bit superfluous.

i'd say it's all part of the process of impressing upon you the gravitas of the situation of passing judgement on a fellow citizen.

P_1

Interesting, I wonder if it is possible to swear on the statute book or say the constitution rather than on the bible

Peregrinus

P_1 wrote: »

Interesting, I wonder if it is possible to swear on the statute book or say the constitution rather than on the bible

You can ask. (Though the statute book runs to about a hundred volumes now, so there might be practical problems, not to mention health and safety requirements.)

The legislation on this has grown up a bit haphazardly, so it's slightly confused, but at the moment it stands like this:

- There is a prescribed forms of oaths for (most) Christians and Jews to take.

- There is a prescribed form of non-religious affirmation for people who have no religious belief, or for people whose religious beliefs prevent them from taking an oath (e.g. Quakers, Moravians). In theory before allowing you to make the affirmation the judge is entitled to quiz you to ascertain that you have no religious belief, or alternatively that you have religious beliefs which preclude oath-taking, but I've never seen this happen. In practice anyone who asks to make the affirmation is immediately allowed to so do, in my experience, though some people do report bad experiences.

- There's a residual category of religious people who are neither Christians nor Jews, and whose religious beliefs do not preclude the taking of oaths. There is no prescribed form of oath for them. They can take an oath in any manner which was lawful in 1909 (the year the Oaths Act 1909 was passed), which is a bit vague. In practice, they get to take oaths in whatever manner is customary in their religious tradition, or they make the affirmation.

The oath or affirmation is equally binding, regardless of which form it is taken in, and regardless of whether you stick exactly to the prescribed form or deviate slightly from it.

So, if you want to make the non-religious affirmation while holding a copy of the Constitution, I suspect the judge would accommodate you. If you want to vary the words of the affirmation so that it refers to the Constitution, the judge might or might not allow that. It's a deviation from the prescribed form, obviously, but that doesn't affect the binding character of the affirmation, and on that basis the judge might not be too bothered.

P_1

Interesting thanks for the reply. So in theory, depending on the judge it should be possible for you to swear on a particular philosophic text that doesn't promote indecency?

Akrasia

Gbear wrote: »

It's a bit bizarre that you have to make any oath at all.
It seems a bit superfluous.

Bit of an archaic tradition. I suppose it goes with the territory in the court room.
It's going to need to be updated sooner or later.

It does seem superfluous, but interestingly, human psychology is wired in such a way that the act of swearing an oath to tell the truth will have a sub conscious effect to make you less likely to lie.

It makes no difference whether you believe that the oath would somehow be enforced either by a supernatural entity or the court, your brain has already been 'primed'

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

It does seem superfluous, but interestingly, human psychology is wired in such a way that the act of swearing an oath to tell the truth will have a sub conscious effect to make you less likely to lie.

It makes no difference whether you believe that the oath would somehow be enforced either by a supernatural entity or the court, your brain has already been 'primed'

Yup. The point of the oath is to underline to you (and to everyone else present) the seriousness of the occasion, the significance of your role in it and the particular importance of taking care to tell the truth (for a witness) or come to a well-founded judgment (for a juror). From this point of view it makes no difference whether the oath is theistic or not.

Peregrinus

P_1 wrote: »

Interesting thanks for the reply. So in theory, depending on the judge it should be possible for you to swear on a particular philosophic text that doesn't promote indecency?

The more exotic the text you have chosen, the less readily a judge will accommodate you, I suspect. The scriptures of any major religion are likely to be fine, as I suspect would be foundational civic documents such as the Constitution.

But the judge has no interest in your negative opinions about the bible, and he will not see oath-taking as an opportunity for grandstanding about this. He will have no sympathy with you choosing a text for the purpose of making some point about why you aren't choosing the bible. Your desire not to choose the bible is fully accommodated by your not having to choose the bible.

If you choose a text because you recognise that it makes a positive ethical and moral claim upon you relevant to the discharge of your civic duty as a witness or a juror, you're likely to be accommodated. If you choose a text to demonstrate how superior you are to all those Christians who swear on the bible, it's - ahem - a bit less likely.

P_1

Peregrinus wrote: »

The more exotic the text you have chosen, the less readily a judge will accommodate you, I suspect. The scriptures of any major religion are likely to be fine, as I suspect would be foundational civic documents such as the Constitution.

But the judge has no interest in your negative opinions about the bible, and he will not see oath-taking as an opportunity for grandstanding about this. He will have no sympathy with you choosing a text for the purpose of making some point about why you aren't choosing the bible. Your desire not to choose the bible is fully accommodated by your not having to choose the bible.

If you choose a text because you recognise that it makes a positive ethical and moral claim upon you relevant to the discharge of your civic duty as a witness or a juror, you're likely to be accommodated. If you choose a text to demonstrate how superior you are to all those Christians who swear on the bible, it's - ahem - a bit less likely.

Interesting stuff, I wonder how a judge would view either Hobbes' 'Leviathan' or Mill's 'On Liberty' for example?

Peregrinus

P_1 wrote: »

Interesting stuff, I wonder how a judge would view either Hobbes' 'Leviathan' or Mill's 'On Liberty' for example?

Well, try it and see, is the only way you will know for sure.

But I doubt that you would be accommodated. The judge will want to know if you feel these books have the same status for you, and can make the same moral claim upon you, as the scriptures do for Christians and Jews, or as the values of truth, honesty, integrity and service do for Quakers and Moravians. And I suspect the honest answer to that is no, not quite; they are just books that you think contain much good sense.

And if that is your answer, I think he would probably think that's not enough to make them appropriate symbols to be employed in oath-taking. And he'll likely be swayed by the fact that there is no tradition of using them in this way, and no established community that uses them in this way, despite the fact that their value has been long and widely recognised.

This isn't an opportunity for you to exhibit your political or ethical convictions. The point about the oath is that it's supposed to be something that engages your conscience. "Books that contain much good sense" aren't quite there, from that point of view.

(And, though this might bother you more than the judge, you might stand accused of inconsistency. Leviathan argues at some length that it is the proper role of the civil power to identify revealed scripture and enforce it through law, and that the citizen should accept the religious beliefs dictated by the state over his own conscience, in which case a witness or juror should have no problem swearing on the bible if that's what the judge wants him to do. Is that really what you believe? )

Banbh

I recall in the 1960s being called for jury duty and I took the trouble to read up on the system. At the time, and I assume it still applies, one could affirm if one gave the judge a valid reason why one would not take an oath. It was also necessary to object to the oath-taking before the clerk had begun.
For me this entailed jumping up and not touching the Bible which was being handed from hand to hand (as I had heard from another heathen that a judge deemed the touching of the book to mean that the oath-taking had started).
There was shock in the courtroom as I stood there. The judge turned to me and very slowly said: 'You may affirm if you give me a good reason why I should allow it.' (This apparantly is/was in the Act.)
I replied: 'I'm an atheist.' Then the judge seeing I was some sort of trouble-maker made a joke: 'A practising atheist?' (Mild titters in court at the judge's joke). 'Yes, a practising atheist,' I replied. 'Very well proceed.'
And that's how I stood up for my non-religion and never got to try a case.

P_1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, try it and see, is the only way you will know for sure.

But I doubt that you would be accommodated. The judge will want to know if you feel these books have the same status for you, and can make the same moral claim upon you, as the scriptures do for Christians and Jews, or as the values of truth, honesty, integrity and service do for Quakers and Moravians. And I suspect the honest answer to that is no, not quite; they are just books that you think contain much good sense.

And if that is your answer, I think he would probably think that's not enough to make them appropriate symbols to be employed in oath-taking. And he'll likely be swayed by the fact that there is no tradition of using them in this way, and no established community that uses them in this way, despite the fact that their value has been long and widely recognised.

This isn't an opportunity for you to exhibit your political or ethical convictions. The point about the oath is that it's supposed to be something that engages your conscience. "Books that contain much good sense" aren't quite there, from that point of view.

(And, though this might bother you more than the judge, you might stand accused of inconsistency. Leviathan argues at some length that it is the proper role of the civil power to identify revealed scripture and enforce it through law, and that the citizen should accept the religious beliefs dictated by the state over his own conscience, in which case a witness or juror should have no problem swearing on the bible if that's what the judge wants him to do. Is that really what you believe? )

Well that has certainly opened a can of worms but I suppose when you think of it a lot of the classic philosophical works would have drawn a certain degree of inspiration from the main religious works

Hotblack Desiato

Banbh wrote: »

And that's how I stood up for my non-religion and never got to try a case.

The defence objected to you because you chose to affirm? (although they don't have to actually give a reason)

I affirmed when on jury duty about 12 years ago. First time I ever stood up in front of anyone else and said I didn't believe in god got to try the case and all.

magicbastarder

i just missed out on jury duty about seven years ago; i was the 19th candidate on the panel; the 18th candidate became the 12th juror.
double sexual assault case, if i remember correctly; i was both relieved and disappointed that i wasn't chosen.

emuhead

I know a Quaker who affirmed. The judge was fine about it - this was about 20 years ago. The only problem was it took ages for them to dig out the alternative card with the wording as they didn't get the request very often.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

The defence objected to you because you chose to affirm? (although they don't have to actually give a reason)

I affirmed when on jury duty about 12 years ago. First time I ever stood up in front of anyone else and said I didn't believe in god got to try the case and all.

We don't know that anybody objected; there can be lots of reasons why people called as jurors end up not serving, e.g. because cases settle or are the subject of guilty pleas, and fewer jurors than were called are actually needed.

And, if there was an objection, it wasn't necessarily from the defence.

Peregrinus

Banbh wrote: »

I recall in the 1960s being called for jury duty and I took the trouble to read up on the system. At the time, and I assume it still applies, one could affirm if one gave the judge a valid reason why one would not take an oath. It was also necessary to object to the oath-taking before the clerk had begun.
For me this entailed jumping up and not touching the Bible which was being handed from hand to hand (as I had heard from another heathen that a judge deemed the touching of the book to mean that the oath-taking had started).
There was shock in the courtroom as I stood there. The judge turned to me and very slowly said: 'You may affirm if you give me a good reason why I should allow it.' (This apparantly is/was in the Act.)
I replied: 'I'm an atheist.' Then the judge seeing I was some sort of trouble-maker made a joke: 'A practising atheist?' (Mild titters in court at the judge's joke). 'Yes, a practising atheist,' I replied. 'Very well proceed.'And that's how I stood up for my non-religion and never got to try a case.

I don't think the law has changed since the 1960s. It's just that it's far more common for people to want to affirm, and judges are much more relaxed about accommodating that without given them the third degree over why.

But the strict legal position is that a judge can quiz you to satisfy himself that you are a person entitled to affirm, and I suppose you could still come across some ill-tempered judge who, on a bad day, will do this.

From memory, there was a Law Reform Commission report a few years ago which recommended legislation to put oaths and affirmations on an equal footing, so that people could choose to swear or affirm as they preferred, with no second-guessing of their reasons for the choice. But there has been no legislation to give effect to that, and possibly part of the reason for not legislating is that, in practice, people are already given that freedom.