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

Would you swear an oath?

2

Comments

  • #32
    Very Bored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Very Bored


    Dughorm wrote: »
    According to this journal article about the banking inquiry:
    http://www.thejournal.ie/bankers-oath-banking-inquiry-2064790-Apr2015/

    "There’s also an affirmation available for those who are not religious, which reads:
    I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

    Why can't there be an affirmation for everyone or none at all - what's the point of bringing someone's religion or non-religion into it?

    I would plump for that oath obviously then. That said, I don't understand why there is a need for an oath anyway. The mere act of speaking in court should carry with it an onus of having to tell the truth. For example, ringing 999 and saying there is a fire when there isn't is dishonest, and you automatically get punished for it (rightly). Why should courts be different? If you provide evidence in court and you get caught lieing then it should be considered that you have committed an offence, oath or no oath.


  • #33
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Very Bored wrote: »
    I would plump for that oath obviously then. That said, I don't understand why there is a need for an oath anyway. The mere act of speaking in court should carry with it an onus of having to tell the truth. For example, ringing 999 and saying there is a fire when there isn't is dishonest, and you automatically get punished for it (rightly). Why should courts be different? If you provide evidence in court and you get caught lieing then it should be considered that you have committed an offence, oath or no oath.

    History is the main reason, also telling a lie in and of itself may not be a crime. By having the oath or affirmation the person is reminded of how serious it is and that they may commit perjury if the lie.


  • #34
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,546 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Fuggedaboubit

    Glazers Out!



  • #35
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Very Bored wrote: »
    I would plump for that oath obviously then. That said, I don't understand why there is a need for an oath anyway. The mere act of speaking in court should carry with it an onus of having to tell the truth. For example, ringing 999 and saying there is a fire when there isn't is dishonest, and you automatically get punished for it (rightly). Why should courts be different? If you provide evidence in court and you get caught lieing then it should be considered that you have committed an offence, oath or no oath.

    +1

    Great example. Just don't get it to be honest, are you supposed to become a better person by swearing an oath than otherwise?

    If anything, fear of public perceptions cajoling people into taking oaths they don't believe in is worse than swearing no oaths at all?


  • #36
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    History is the main reason, also telling a lie in and of itself may not be a crime. By having the oath or affirmation the person is reminded of how serious it is and that they may commit perjury if the lie.

    Why can't telling a lie in court in itself be called perjury instead of bringing oaths into it.

    I'm sure being in the court itself is a reminder that things are serious!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Dughorm wrote: »
    +1

    Great example. Just don't get it to be honest, are you supposed to become a better person by swearing an oath than otherwise?

    If anything, fear of public perceptions cajoling people into taking oaths they don't believe in is worse than swearing no oaths at all?

    An affirmation is not an oath. The oath or affirmation reminds the person that this is a court and they commit a crime if they lie. I don't see any issue as long as affirmation is an option.


  • #38
    Very Bored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Very Bored


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    History is the main reason, also telling a lie in and of itself may not be a crime. By having the oath or affirmation the person is reminded of how serious it is and that they may commit perjury if the lie.

    Obviously history is the main reason behind it. However, I disagree with the concept of swearing an oath being necessary to prevent perjury. No, telling a lie is not a crime. If I go down the pub and I tell my wife I drank only three pints of porter when I had seven I won't have any guards breathing down my neck. However, standing up and giving evidence in court should carry with it a certain gravitas so if you lie, regardless of swearing an oath or otherwise, you're in trouble. As I said, if I feel like phoning 999 and calling an ambulance when there isn't a necessity, then that is a dishonest act and I can expect to be punished (correctly). I don't have to swear an oath before I make an emergency call but to make a dishonest one is illegal, I don't see why court should be different.


  • #39
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    An affirmation is not an oath. The oath or affirmation reminds the person that this is a court and they commit a crime if they lie. I don't see any issue as long as affirmation is an option.

    Does someone commit perjury if they lie after making an affirmation? Then why can't there be an affirmation for everyone (or no affirmation at all) and leave someone's religion out of it?


  • #40
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Dughorm wrote: »
    Why can't telling a lie in court in itself be called perjury instead of bringing oaths into it.

    I'm sure being in the court itself is a reminder that things are serious!

    The law could be set up that way, but as through out history we have had the oath it has become engrained in the legal structure. I would think if oath and affirmation removed then the judge or someone in court would have to give a warning to every witness that they commit an offence if telling lies.


  • #41
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Dughorm wrote: »
    Does someone commit perjury if they lie after making an affirmation? Then why can't there be an affirmation for everyone and leave someone's religion out of it?

    Yes of course perjury is telling a lie under oath or after affirmation.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Magnate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Magnate


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    Why did you not afirm.

    The judge seemed like the old-fashioned religious type. I made myself more relatable to her, it was psychology 101. Besides, I'm not the type that feels the need to broadcast my religious views, or lack thereof.


  • #43
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    The law could be set up that way, but as through out history we have had the oath it has become engrained in the legal structure. I would think if oath and affirmation removed then the judge or someone in court would have to give a warning to every witness that they commit an offence if telling lies.

    Every witness at the moment has to give an oath/affirmation anyway so I don't see the additional burden here?


  • #44
    CarrickMcJoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,379 ✭✭✭CarrickMcJoe


    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.

    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.


  • #45
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Magnate wrote: »
    Besides, I'm not the type that feels the need to broadcast my religious views, or lack thereof.

    Exactly! And by having the oath / affirmation distinction the court seems to be forcing you to do just that. Affirmations for all or none at all seems a much fairer way to administer things.


  • #46
    Magnate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Magnate


    Dughorm wrote: »
    Exactly! And by having the oath / affirmation distinction the court seems to be forcing you to do just that. Affirmations for all or none at all seems a much fairer way to administer things.

    Yep agree with you there.


  • #47
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Raging_Ninja wrote: »
    tradition maybe?

    Licking a persons nipple used to be tradition too.


  • #48
    Very Bored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Very Bored


    I don't get why there should be a warning if there is no oath. Perjury is a criminal offence. If you commit it and you get caught you get punished, simple as. No-one pops up before some nutter murders or rapes someone and says "careful now, that's illegal". Any sane, reasonably educated person knows what's illegal and what isn't. I'm not arguing that perjury shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that it shouldn't have a special status above other crimes.


  • #49
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    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.

    Not always truth is each persons version. Also in criminal cases usually the accused never takes the box so the only sworn evidence given is that of the prosecution witnesses. So in many trials there is often no clash of evidence and where there is it might come down to interpretation rather than lies by one side or the other.

    But of course in many cases it is obvious one side or the other is telling lies.


  • #50
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Licking a persons nipple used to be tradition too.

    Before they testified in court? :eek:


  • #51
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Very Bored wrote: »
    I don't get why there should be a warning if there is no oath. Perjury is a criminal offence. If you commit it and you get caught you get punished, simple as. No-one pops up before some nutter murders or rapes someone and says "careful now, that's illegal". Any sane, reasonably educated person knows what's illegal and what isn't. I'm not arguing that perjury shouldn't be illegal, I'm arguing that it shouldn't have a special status above other crimes.

    Telling a lie is of itself often not a crime, murder and rape always are. perjury is by law defined as telling a lie under oath and later under affirmation. So to have perjury there must be an oath or affirmation.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Very Bored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Very Bored


    In fact, I think perjury should be extended to things like employment disciplinary hearings and reference issuing. If some yoke lies in either of those preceedings, given the gravity then can have on someone else's life, then they should go to jail. I just don't see the necessity for swearing an oath, after all a crime is a crime and ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.


  • #53
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    Not always truth is each persons version. Also in criminal cases usually the accused never takes the box so the only sworn evidence given is that of the prosecution witnesses. So in many trials there is often no clash of evidence and where there is it might come down to interpretation rather than lies by one side or the other.

    But of course in many cases it is obvious one side or the other is telling lies.

    Is testimony given by someone who takes an affirmation considered to be "sworn evidence", given that people mentioned earlier that only oaths are sworn?

    Is testimony from an affirmation considered lesser evidence?


  • #54
    fleet_admiral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,750 ✭✭✭fleet_admiral


    Oi swear Sharon, onnn the Bible


  • #55
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    Telling a lie is of itself often not a crime, murder and rape always are. perjury is by law defined as telling a lie under oath and later under affirmation. So to have perjury there must be an oath or affirmation.

    If the crime of perjury could be redefined to include affirmations I see absolutely no reason why it can't be redefined again to take oaths/affirmations out of it altogether.


  • #56
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Dughorm wrote: »
    If the crime of perjury could be redefined to include affirmations I see absolutely no reason why it can't be redefined again to take oaths/affirmations out of it altogether.

    It could be yes, if you feel so strongly I would advise contact with local TD to table a bill.


  • #57
    Very Bored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭Very Bored


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    Telling a lie is of itself often not a crime, murder and rape always are. perjury is by law defined as telling a lie under oath and later under affirmation. So to have perjury there must be an oath or affirmation.

    Why? Financial lieing is often not a crime but when it is fraud it is. Its not difficult to commit fraud without being warned first. If my wife, for example, buys a dress and tells me it cost €100 whereas in fact it cost €200 she's not likely to be going to jail any time soon. If she commited financial mismanagement in her workplace she could well do. The likelihood of her being warned beforehand though is unlikely. As I said earlier, its not illegal to lie to my wife that I had three pints when I had seven... in fact, its not even illegal to say I didn't sleep with anyone if I had relations with the girl next door. OK, if I got found out (I haven't btw!!!) then I would quite probably find myself in legal proceedings but not criminal ones. But ringing 999 and saying there is a fire when there isn't is a lie but it is an illegal lie. There are many instances where lieing is not illegal, but there are also a few where it is but perjury is the only one where you get a warning. As I said, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law and if you get caught lieing in court and claim ignorance then tough.


  • #58
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    If anything, removing the requirement for oaths might tighten the focus on the actual evidence before the court instead of the character of the people involved.

    How many times have we seen something along the lines of "Ah Johnny is of good stock, his family are of good standing in the community, he's active in the GAA club" being given an awful lot of weight compared to the CCTV evidence showing that Johnny was stealing cars at 2 in the morning!!


  • #59
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Very Bored wrote: »
    Why? Financial lieing is often not a crime but when it is fraud it is. Its not difficult to commit fraud without being warned first. If my wife, for example, buys a dress and tells me it cost €100 whereas in fact it cost €200 she's not likely to be going to jail any time soon. If she commited financial mismanagement in her workplace she could well do. The likelihood of her being warned beforehand though is unlikely. As I said earlier, its not illegal to lie to my wife that I had three pints when I had seven... in fact, its not even illegal to say I didn't sleep with anyone if I had relations with the girl next door. OK, if I got found out (I haven't btw!!!) then I would quite probably find myself in legal proceedings but not criminal ones. But ringing 999 and saying there is a fire when there isn't is a lie but it is an illegal lie. There are many instances where lieing is not illegal, but there are also a few where it is but perjury is the only one where you get a warning. As I said, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law and if you get caught lieing in court and claim ignorance then tough.

    There are many examples where a warning must be given before a crime is committed an example a warning from AGS to leave a place also a warning on board an aircraft from a crew member to stop doing a certain act. I don't see why in something as serious as a court setting some warning either through taking an oath or affirmation or some other warning should not be given. But of course the law could be changed and if it was then your argument would be correct, but as it currently stands then the oath or affirmation must be taken. I personally would not like perjury to be just any person telling a lie in court.


  • #60
    Pro Hoc Vice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Dughorm wrote: »
    If anything, removing the requirement for oaths might tighten the focus on the actual evidence before the court instead of the character of the people involved.

    How many times have we seen something along the lines of "Ah Johnny is of good stock, his family are of good standing in the community, he's active in the GAA club" being given an awful lot of weight compared to the CCTV evidence showing that Johnny was stealing cars at 2 in the morning!!

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Dughorm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 895 ✭✭✭Dughorm


    Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »
    I personally would not like perjury to be just any person telling a lie in court.

    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?


Advertisement