Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    I'm a Christian and won't swear on the Bible. It says not to and gives reasons. It goes on to say let your yes be yes and no be no, an affirmation in modern terms.
    I gave evidence once and affirmed.the guy got 4 years.


  • Options
    #93
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,171 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    inocybe wrote: »
    It's a problem that the oath reveals your religion to the court and allows prejudice by religious judges.
    No, it doesn't, as Axton Enough Globe's position shows:
    Axton Enough Globe wrote: »
    I'm a Christian and won't swear on the Bible. It says not to and gives reasons. It goes on to say let your yes be yes and no be no, an affirmation in modern terms.

    There are a number of Christian and non-Christian religious traditions that objec to oath-taking, and won't practice it. The Quakers are the most well-known example, but there are others. (I'm pretty sure Tat's not a Quaker.)

    So if you affirm rather than swear, that could be either because (a) you have no religion, or (b) you have strong religious convictions which prevent you from swearing, and nobody in the court has any way of knowing which unless you say which.


  • Options
    #94
    inocybe
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭inocybe


    So why not have everyone affirm?


  • Options
    #95
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,171 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    inocybe wrote: »
    So why not have everyone affirm?
    In principle, I'd have no problem with that.

    But I tend to take a utilitarian approach here; what works best? Others have suggested that a stern warning from the judge about the penalties for perjury would work best, but I doubt that. The truth is that successful prosecutions for perjury are extremely rare; if you're relying on the fear of punishment to get witnesses to tell the truth, the rational witness will not have a great fear of punishment, because it's not a very likely outcome.

    From a psychological point of view, I think any affirmation/declaration/oath that the witness himself makes has an edge, in terms of getting the witness to buy in to the significance of the moment, and the importance of respect for truth in this context. And I think allowing the witness to choose the declaration/affirmation/oath that reflects his views and values may have a benefit here too - he has become an active participant, in a small way, in framing the way in which he acknowledge where his responsibilities lie. All this encourages and supports buy-in.

    So, I favour a ritual in which the witness actively says something, rather than passively listens to something said to him. And I'm inclined to favour a ritual in which the witness has some involvement in selecting what it is that he will say, to reflect his own views and values.

    But of course that only works if it's very clear to witnesses that they have a choice, and they are encouraged to make a thoughtful choice. That's plainly not happening if the default is that a bible is thrust into the witness's hand unless he pipes up and says "no, hang on a minute . . .".


Advertisement