Would you swear an oath?

Dughorm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Johnny's standing might be important when it comes to sentence but I can not see how his family situation can contradict the evidence contained in CCTV.

It doesn't (I hope!) but the emphasis on oaths/affirmations seems to me to be a symptom of what's wrong in our legal system placing an over emphasis on a person's perceived "character" instead of focusing on the evidence that is actually heard in the court.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

Could you explain why? What is the disadvantage to this? The burden of proof for perjury is difficult enough to demonstrate as it is!

Would innocent liars be victimised?

The burden of proof in perjury should be difficult. I believe that the giving of evidence should be clearly different to just saying what a person saw etc. by saying take an oath you are raising the act above the ordinary you are reminding the person what they are doing and it's not the same as being down the pub talking to your mates.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

It doesn't (I hope!) but the emphasis on oaths/affirmations seems to me to be a symptom of what's wrong in our legal system placing an over emphasis on a person's perceived "character" instead of focusing on the evidence that is actually heard in the court.

The evidence is all that matters, but a judge or a jury will take in to account how the person acted when giving that evidence, how the person reacted when cross examined. Remember a jury or judge in a criminal matter must find they believe the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I for one see no problem with elevating the giving of evidence in court.

Dughorm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The burden of proof in perjury should be difficult. I believe that the giving of evidence should be clearly different to just saying what a person saw etc. by saying take an oath you are raising the act above the ordinary you are reminding the person what they are doing and it's not the same as being down the pub talking to your mates.

I believe only a few weeks ago we heard of several thousand penalty points offences being struck out of court because the offending motorists "forgot" their licences.

I assume these people swore oaths/affirmations and no doubt they "forgot" their licences in good conscience having taken their oaths/affirmations.

The discussion with their mates in the pub was probably little different to the court in reality. If anything the talk in the pub afterwards was probably more honest.

It's an absolute farce. The oaths/affirmations only appear to serve the purpose of highlighting the religious/non-religious beliefs of the individuals involved. Get rid of it and focus on the facts of the case instead.

Jesus Wept

Can I pick the book?

Dughorm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A judge or a jury will take in to account how the person acted when giving that evidence, how the person reacted when cross examined.

That sounds reasonable. However, I think this also highlights that the swearing of an oath or not should have no bearing on this.

If my evidence is reasonable and stands firm under cross examination I wouldn't like to think it would be discounted simply because it was not "sworn" evidence.

Bongalongherb

CarrickMcJoe wrote: »

But, would you tell the truth? Just because you are an atheist doesn't make you a liar.

For every case in court at least one of the people involved has to be lying even though they took an oath.

There is one thing I stand by in regards to myself personally, and that is the Truth. I never lie, I always tell it how it is. This was my downfall a few times in the past because I just told the truth no matter how crap it was.

The problem is... most folk don't like hearing the truth.


I'm a follower of truth.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

That sounds reasonable. However, I think this also highlights that the swearing of an oath or not should have no bearing on this.

If my evidence is reasonable and stands firm under cross examination I wouldn't like to think it would be discounted simply because it was not "sworn" evidence.

It won't be, it simple can not be given currently.

Pro Hoc Vice

The Rodgers wrote: »

Can I pick the book?

As the oath is a religious thing then you can pick the religious book of choice. As affirmation is not religious there is no book.

Dughorm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It won't be, it simple can not be given currently.

Good point! But not the main point of my post...:)

Does this mean that evidence given under affirmation is still "sworn evidence" even though it isn't sworn?

catallus

I was surprised to learn recently that judges are blessed by a priest when they are appointed.

NIMAN

If someone giving evidence in one of these tribunals is later found to have perjured themselves, does it have the same legal consequences as lying to a court of law?

Dughorm

Have any of the judges made an affirmation out of curiosity?

Pro Hoc Vice

NIMAN wrote: »

If someone giving evidence in one of these tribunals is later found to have perjured themselves, does it have the same legal consequences as lying to a court of law?

Yes.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

Have any of the judges made an affirmation out of curiosity?

Are you talking about a judge giving evidence.

Dughorm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Are you talking about a judge giving evidence.

Sorry, I mean when judges take up office - do they have to swear oaths under the constitution or can they make affirmations?

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

I believe only a few weeks ago we heard of several thousand penalty points offences being struck out of court because the offending motorists "forgot" their licences.

I assume these people swore oaths/affirmations and no doubt they "forgot" their licences in good conscience having taken their oaths/affirmations.

The discussion with their mates in the pub was probably little different to the court in reality. If anything the talk in the pub afterwards was probably more honest.

It's an absolute farce. The oaths/affirmations only appear to serve the purpose of highlighting the religious/non-religious beliefs of the individuals involved. Get rid of it and focus on the facts of the case instead.

I know people who have very serious religious views who will only a firm as some branches of Christianity do not swear on any holy book. So a person who affirms may be very religious.

Pro Hoc Vice

Dughorm wrote: »

Sorry, I mean when judges take up office - do they have to swear oaths under the constitution or can they make affirmations?

"In the presence of Almighty God, I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me."

While the following is a bit out of date 1990 it may be an interesting read http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rOaths.htm

Son Of A Vidic

Dughorm wrote: »

Saw Brian Cowen swearing an oath on the tele today

This obviously must have occurred on Comedy Central or the Comedy Network.

Samaris

Oh for heaven's sake. If you're religious and it matters deeply to you, swear on the Bible. If you're not, use the secular oath and mean it just as much.

It's an old tradition, and while that is not a reason to keep it, why force those who might feel the religious oath more important to take a secular one? The atheists had to do it once, so really, turning it around just because is fairly spiteful. It makes no difference to the final ruling.

There's two oaths/affirmation. Pick your poison. ^^

Dughorm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

"In the presence of Almighty God, I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me."

While the following is a bit out of date 1990 it may be an interesting read http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rOaths.htm

Thanks for this - very interesting and informative.

I find the following statement disappointing:
"Finally, it may be noted that a witness who, without lawful excuse, refuses to be sworn or to make an affirmation is guilty of contempt in the face of the court and may be fined and imprisoned."

I would suspect that this offence is actioned 100% of the time and yet realistically how many cases of perjury or false oaths are actually pursued? Seems to miss the point really.

Dughorm

Samaris wrote: »

Oh for heaven's sake. If you're religious and it matters deeply to you, swear on the Bible. If you're not, use the secular oath and mean it just as much.

It's an old tradition, and while that is not a reason to keep it, why force those who might feel the religious oath more important to take a secular one? The atheists had to do it once, so really, turning it around just because is fairly spiteful. It makes no difference to the final ruling.

There's two oaths/affirmation. Pick your poison. ^^

I don't think it's as simple as that, as Pro Hoc Vice already explained:

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I know people who have very serious religious views who will only a firm as some branches of Christianity do not swear on any holy book. So a person who affirms may be very religious.

And my argument is very simple - whether you are religious or not shouldn't matter. Take it out. Let the evidence take the place of oaths.

Dughorm

This is interesting...
http://humanrights.ie/civil-liberties/religious-oaths-and-the-constitutional-convention/

In 1996 the Constitution Review Group recommended that ‘Provision should be made for the President to make either a religious declaration or a non-religious affirmation’.

With respect to judges it deliberated on whether Article 34(5) should be amended to contain only an affirmation (i.e., a declaration without the religious references) or a choice between an affirmation and an oath. A majority of the Review Group favoured an affirmation only. It argued that ‘t does not appear desirable that a judge be required openly to choose between two forms of declaration thereby indicating his or her religious beliefs. The daily exercise of the judicial function requires that a judge’s impartiality should not be put in doubt by a public declaration of personal values. The same consideration does not apply to the President in regard to whom the Review Group suggests a choice of alternative.’[8]

And my argument is... why should someone giving evidence have to make a public declaration of personal values also??

bolopapa

Absolutely not, my religions against it.

CruelCoin

No.

How could i stand by an oath sworn on something i don't believe in?

Samaris

Dughorm wrote: »

I don't think it's as simple as that, as Pro Hoc Vice already explained:



And my argument is very simple - whether you are religious or not shouldn't matter. Take it out. Let the evidence take the place of oaths.

As regards his comment, then they can swear a secular oath too. In the same way that a non-religious person might not be able to swear on something they don't believe in, a religious person may feel better for swearing solemnly on something they do believe in. Or it may be down to the person and they don't want to swear a religious oath despite being religious or they may even wish to swear a religious oath while not being religious because of the formality and what they expect.

The evidence doesn't just speak for itself though. What about when the evidence is what people saw or heard, and they have to recount that faithfully in Court? For some, the oath is important there.

Still, at the moment, there are two oaths. It should make no difference to the court or judge as to which oath a person becomes bound to to give their evidence, any more than if they affirm in English or in Irish.

Very Bored

@Pro Hoc Vice

Those issues you cited are more than a little misleading. AGS do not have to warn you before arresting you, neither do you have to be warned on board an aircraft. They warn you because it is reasonable to do so because you could simply have made a mistake. For example, lighting up on a plane is a crime and the instant you do it you have committed a crime. That it may have been done in human error and that it is easier for the airline to warn you and have you stop rather than arrange for you to be arrested at destination is the reason you get warned first. They could, however, have you arrested should they so wish. Anyone who thinks telling a lie in court is the same as telling a lie in the pub is guilty as far as I'm concerned because that would require a gross misunderstanding of reality beyond the vast majority, probably all, of the adult population. You can't tell a lie without actively thinking it out and deciding to do so, its not an unthinking action. For every crime where you get a warning first, there are dozens where you don't.

B.A._Baracus

Swearing on the Bible, swearing on the Qoran or even just take religion out of it and swearing an oath to tell the truth all has one fundamental problem. That people are liars and people are especially liars when it comes down it.

Right Turn Clyde

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I'm atheist, so if the judge said... will you swear an oath to magic mushrooms and beer ? I would most definitely swear an oath. But swearing an oath to fairies in the sky, not a chance.

I'm also an atheist that takes magic mushrooms. In fact, taking psychedelics is the reason I don't use phrases as glib as "fairies in the sky." What's the point in taking substances that induce such deep states of mind, if the end result is turning into a 14-year-old Christopher Hitchens fan?

Dughorm

Samaris wrote: »

The evidence doesn't just speak for itself though. What about when the evidence is what people saw or heard, and they have to recount that faithfully in Court? For some, the oath is important there.

Let all people recount their evidence faithfully and let the merits of their evidence stand on what they said. What does the oath add to their testimony? Is it supposed to make them more credible in the eyes of the court than other witnesses? Is that not rather like non-sense?

Samaris wrote: »

Still, at the moment, there are two oaths. It should make no difference to the court or judge as to which oath a person becomes bound to to give their evidence, any more than if they affirm in English or in Irish.

And yet why do I have a suspicion that it does make a difference.... people don't have to disclose their marital status or their race before they actually give their evidence so why is the opportunity to speculate about a person's religious beliefs a mandatory part of the justice process?