Jury duty today - all "Christian" and sworn in on the bible.

sangsung

FishOnABike wrote: »

If a person swears an oath to an entity they don't believe on a book of myths and allegorical stories is the oath valid?

What should they swear on if they don't believe in a god? I think swearing on anything is ridiculous. I would swear and lie on my own grandmother's grave if it meant I'd get out of jail.

Shrap

sangsung wrote: »

So if you were on trial in court, and telling a lie guaranteed that you walked free, but telling the truth meant that you were given a life sentence, you would tell the truth if your favourite book was put on front of you? (whatever your favourite meaningful book is. What is it by the way?)

Both of those questions are entirely irrelevant to the topic*, as would be my answers, but my favourite book is "If this is a man/The truce" by Primo Levi. I have a copy that was passed to me carefully and lovingly by my Grandfather. Hope that helps.


*Actually, I take that back. It's not irrelevant, but it's part of the greater question on the usefulness of an oath at all. As you rightly point out, if you're going to lie in court, it's not going to make any difference if a book (any book) is sworn on. Here's a really good article on exactly that:

http://aclatterofthelaw.com/2012/05/24/oaths-at-best-embarrassing-and-at-worst-offensive/

"The final recommendation by the Commission report was as follows:

Having reviewed all these factors, and in particular having regard to our conclusion that the oath offers little or no greater security for the truth than a statutory affirmation, the Commission considers that the potential prejudice to witnesses and jurors who choose to affirm, together with the great attraction of providing for a universal and simplified procedure which would place all persons on an equal footing, weighs in favour of the abolition of the oath generally.

This recommendation, that the oath be abolished and replaced by a modified affirmation, has never been implemented. For now, the oath is another aspect of public life in Ireland which remains theistic by default."

sangsung

Shrap wrote: »

Both of those questions are entirely irrelevant to the topic*, as would be my answers, but my favourite book is "If this is a man/The truce" by Primo Levi. I have a copy that was passed to me carefully and lovingly by my Grandfather. Hope that helps.


*Actually, I take that back. It's not irrelevant, but it's part of the greater question on the usefulness of an oath at all. As you rightly point out, if you're going to lie in court, it's not going to make any difference if a book (any book) is sworn on. Here's a really good article on exactly that:

http://aclatterofthelaw.com/2012/05/24/oaths-at-best-embarrassing-and-at-worst-offensive/

"The final recommendation by the Commission report was as follows:

Having reviewed all these factors, and in particular having regard to our conclusion that the oath offers little or no greater security for the truth than a statutory affirmation, the Commission considers that the potential prejudice to witnesses and jurors who choose to affirm, together with the great attraction of providing for a universal and simplified procedure which would place all persons on an equal footing, weighs in favour of the abolition of the oath generally.

This recommendation, that the oath be abolished and replaced by a modified affirmation, has never been implemented. For now, the oath is another aspect of public life in Ireland which remains theistic by default."

But what do you suggest? Do we all bring our "favourite thing" to court to swear oath on? I guess a lot of people here will swear on their anime/star wars/world of warcraft limited edition xyz. As I said earlier, the act of swearing on anything is meaningless. Your reference above actually proves my point.

Also, that quote you added to the end of your post. Let me amend one sentence (in bold):

This recommendation, that the oath be abolished and replaced by a modified affirmation, has never been implemented. For now, the oath is another aspect of public life in Ireland which remains ceremonial by default.

It's more ceremonial/cultural than anything. Same as Christmas or screaming "holy jesus fcuk" when you stub your toe. It doesn't mean you're a bible thumper.

So let's just leave it as a ceremonial thing for the time being, until you can think of a solution or something better to replace it with (not "my favourite book" may your grandfather rest in peace.)

Shrap

sangsung wrote: »

It's more ceremonial/cultural than anything. Same as Christmas or screaming "holy jesus fcuk" when you stub your toe. It doesn't mean you're a bible thumper.

So let's just leave it as a ceremonial thing for the time being, until you can think of a solution or something better to replace it with (not "my favourite book" may your grandfather rest in peace.)

Yes, correct. But the pertinent word was theistic. That Christian ceremonies (among other religions) are largely ceremonial/cultural these days rather than being actual practices of faith is not my doing, it's just a sign of the times. If the threat of heaven/hell is now meaningless to even Christians then that nullifies the oath altogether. Making it equally as effective as swearing on my favourite book. These days, it only serves to make a difference out of those who are Christian and those who aren't.

The alternative (if you actually read the article) is to have no oath at all. Seeing as it's meaningless, like. Which was also the finding of the commission who's recommendations weren't implemented yet.

TheChizler

sangsung wrote: »

What do you mean a lie?

Making a very serious oath in the name of something you don't believe in isn't very honest is it?

FishOnABike

Shrap wrote: »

Yes, correct. But the pertinent word was theistic. That Christian ceremonies (among other religions) are largely ceremonial/cultural these days rather than being actual practices of faith is not my doing, it's just a sign of the times. If the threat of heaven/hell is now meaningless to even Christians then that nullifies the oath altogether. Making it equally as effective as swearing on my favourite book. These days, it only serves to make a difference out of those who are Christian and those who aren't.

The alternative (if you actually read the article) is to have no oath at all. Seeing as it's meaningless, like. Which was also the finding of the commission who's recommendations weren't implemented yet.

I'd love to be able to swear on the kamasutra just to see the reaction of court officials.:D

sangsung

Neckbeard city here!

And I'm very much an atheist.

This thread reminds me of the stuff you'd see on www.reddit.com/justneckbeardthings

By the way, would you have refused if you were called for jury duty? In front of everybody?

(I know hindsight & anonymity of interwebs will influence your answer).

Hotblack Desiato

sangsung wrote: »

And I'm very much an atheist.

That's what they all say.

"I'm an atheist, but.. shouldn't we give unwarranted deference to religion because tradition?"

Right.

Peregrinus

FishOnABike wrote: »

If a person swears an oath to an entity they don't believe on a book of myths and allegorical stories is the oath valid?

Legally? Yes, absolutely valid. What matters here is not what you believe, but what you induce others to believe. And by taking the oath you induce them to believe that you're going to tell the truth, and that you recognise a serious obligation to do so.

Jimoslimos

Swearing an oath on the Bible doesn't seem a very "Catholic" thing to do. I wonder if it is as a relic of the inherited British system or do other Catholic countries (Spain, Italy, etc) do the same?

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, if you're hoping to be objected to, try to present with stereotypes that the defence won't like. As Hotblack points out, they'll have to make their call before you get to swear/affirm, but try to look as if you're going to swear, not affirm, and furthermore as if you're going to angrily enquire if this is the correct bible that they are presenting to you. You want to exude a religious vibe - and I mean religious in a judgmental way, not religious in a beards-and-sandals way.

It also depends on the nature of the case. Take for instance one where the prosecution have a strong case built mainly on forensic evidence, such as DNA fingerprinting. The aim of the defence is to try introduce doubt into the jurors' minds, probably more likely achievable by selecting someone likely to be sceptical of this sort of evidence or scientifically illiterate - in this case the prosecution would most likely object.

Personally IMO I think the objections to jurors by prosecution or defence can be an indicator as to the robustness of their respective cases. Strong prosecutions tend towards weeding out bias, weak defences can hang on having at least one sympathetic juror likely to ignore evidence.

Peregrinus

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Swearing an oath on the Bible doesn't seem a very "Catholic" thing to do. I wonder if it is as a relic of the inherited British system or do other Catholic countries (Spain, Italy, etc) do the same?

Catholic oath-taking rituals are more diverse. They can involve bibles, or they can involve (or refer to) the gospels, the sacrament, a crucifix, etc, or just a verbal reference to God with no physical artefact involved.

So far as I know, the courts of most European countries permit either (religious) oaths or (non-religious) affirmations. But somebody with better information should feel free to correct me.

There is a 1999 case from the European Court of Human Rights, Buscarini v San Marino, in which a sammarinese citizen, elected to office, objected to the fact that they were required to take a religious oath of office ("I swear on the Holy Gospels . . . ") with no alternative of a non-religious declaration. The Court found that this was a breach of the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

huh, you learn something new every day

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a 1999 case from the European Court of Human Rights, Buscarini v San Marino, in which a sammarinese citizen, ....

Definition of SAMMARINESE

: a native or inhabitant of San Marino



EDIT

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"I'm an atheist, but.. shouldn't we give unwarranted deference to religion because tradition?" ...right

I wouldn't say unwarranted, but i'd agree with that

pwurple

Sorry if this is off topic, but may I ask why you were nervous? I was a juror years ago, and did not feel nervous. I found it all very interesting and was glad to be of small service to the community.

I never quite understood why people want to get out of it, but maybe it is fear or nervousness for lots of people, as you say everyone on the panel was nervous.

Can you explain?

SeantheMan

I didn't use the bible when I had jury duty, everyone else did.
And with regards to being nervous, I could see why...mine was a murder case, so you are up there in front of a potential murderer and anyone could be in the courtroom watching you.
I'm not implying that it's like a film where everyone is intimidated, but some people might feel that way.

Peregrinus

Jimoslimos wrote: »

It also depends on the nature of the case. Take for instance one where the prosecution have a strong case built mainly on forensic evidence, such as DNA fingerprinting. The aim of the defence is to try introduce doubt into the jurors' minds, probably more likely achievable by selecting someone likely to be sceptical of this sort of evidence or scientifically illiterate - in this case the prosecution would most likely object.

I dunno. You'e appealing to one stereotype there ("religious = anti-science") but you could arrive at the opposite conclusion just by selecting a different stereotype ("religious = uncritical/deferential to authority = will be impressed by expert witness").

But in fact, regardless of how much truth either of them contain, neither stereotype is much use when 90% or more of jurors swear rather than affirm. You have a limited number of challenges without showing cause. Challenge somebody who swears rather than affirming, and the chances are 9 out of 10 that the juror presented in his place will also be one who swears rather than affirming.

Shrap

sangsung wrote: »

By the way, would you have refused if you were called for jury duty? In front of everybody?

(I know hindsight & anonymity of interwebs will influence your answer).

Refused what? To swear on the bible, yes of course. To do jury duty, no of course not. There is no difference between my answer and what I actually would have done. You'll find me entirely straight- up and lacking a neck beard (I pluck regularly).

Shrap

pwurple wrote: »

Sorry if this is off topic, but may I ask why you were nervous? I was a juror years ago, and did not feel nervous. I found it all very interesting and was glad to be of small service to the community.

I never quite understood why people want to get out of it, but maybe it is fear or nervousness for lots of people, as you say everyone on the panel was nervous.

Can you explain?

Yes. I didn't want to get out of it. I would have (rather reluctantly, due to work loss) done it. All the conjecture about what to wear to get out of it was tongue in cheek.

I was nervous because I had been expecting to hear from the judge that there was an alternative to the oath and when that wasn't forthcoming, I had a bit of a panic about when/how to ask for the affirmation (that through my nerves I couldn't remember the word for). That's all. I did find it very interesting as well - the arcane procedures and dress, and the solemnity, were fascinating.

realdanbreen

sangsung wrote: »

What should they swear on if they don't believe in a god? I think swearing on anything is ridiculous. I would swear and lie on my own grandmother's grave if it meant I'd get out of jail.

You're an atheist, what else would anyone expect of you?

Kev W

realdanbreen wrote: »

You're an atheist, what else would anyone expect of you?

You wouldn't be passing judgement on atheists there, would you Dan?

realdanbreen

Kev W wrote: »

You wouldn't be passing judgement on atheists there, would you Dan?

You need to figure out the difference between judgement and opinion Kev.;)

Kev W

realdanbreen wrote: »

You need to figure out the difference between judgement and opinion Kev.;)

I think you do.

robindch

Mod:

robindch wrote: »

[...] realdanbreen is strawmanning atheism to within one inch of trolling - any more and realdanbreen is likely to push himself over the edge.

realdanbreen wrote: »

You're an atheist, what else would anyone expect of you?

And there he goes - wheeeeeee.... <splat>

One red card for that, dan. Your next intemperate comment will earn you a few days off.

looksee

If you were really religious though, but wanted to give false evidence for some reason, you could just refuse to swear on the bible and lie quite happily.

Kev W

looksee wrote: »

If you were really religious though, but wanted to give false evidence for some reason, you could just refuse to swear on the bible and lie quite happily.

I think someone that religious that they couldn't lie if they swore on a bible would still have to contend with the fact that they'd be breaking a commandment.

inocybe

I was in family court and saw the judge roll his eyes when I refused the bible and took the other oath. It's a problem that the oath reveals your religion to the court and allows prejudice by religious judges.

FishOnABike

In a supposedly secular state there is no good reason why an affirmation should not be the default - or a warning from the judge regarding the obligation to tell the truth and the consequences if found to have committed perjury as suggested by a previous poster. There should be no place for an oath which is based on the particular viewpoint of one branch of religion.

Diamond Doll

inocybe wrote: »

I was in family court and saw the judge roll his eyes when I refused the bible and took the other oath. It's a problem that the oath reveals your religion to the court and allows prejudice by religious judges.

I've the same issue coming up in a couple of weeks, almost everyone I've spoken to has advised me to just swear on the bible to avoid any prejudice against me. My ex (also atheist) has done so, and because it's such an important case - i.e. custody of my son - I guess I'll have to go against my principles and just do it. I'm not a bit happy about it though.

Peregrinus

Diamond Doll wrote: »

I've the same issue coming up in a couple of weeks, almost everyone I've spoken to has advised me to just swear on the bible to avoid any prejudice against me.

Well, I hesitate to ask, but who have you spoken to? If it's any comfort to you, I can put my hand on my heart and say that I cannot recall every having seen, or ever having heard from a colleague about, a judge expressing or manifesting any prejudice towards a party who affirmed rather than swearing.

inocybe

Diamond Doll wrote: »

I've the same issue coming up in a couple of weeks, almost everyone I've spoken to has advised me to just swear on the bible to avoid any prejudice against me. My ex (also atheist) has done so, and because it's such an important case - i.e. custody of my son - I guess I'll have to go against my principles and just do it. I'm not a bit happy about it though.

If I could go back I would have taken the bible. The judge was an opinionated

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

If I could go back I would have taken the bible. The judge was an opinionated

He might have been a satanist though. In which case had you sworn on the bible the wrong way you would have been really screwed. They hate christians even more than they hate atheists.