What If The Labour Party Got Rid Of...
Politics2 mins ago
Swearing on the bible
I have had little or no experience of our judicial system, and was hoping one or more of you knowledgeable types might be able to answer some basic questions.
1.What type of case/court do you need to affirm the truthfulness of your response? (swearing on the bible)
2.For those who aren't christian, is there a meaningful alternative? ie muslims swear on the koran, etcetc?
3. Is there an alternative for athiests?
1.What type of case/court do you need to affirm the truthfulness of your response? (swearing on the bible)
2.For those who aren't christian, is there a meaningful alternative? ie muslims swear on the koran, etcetc?
3. Is there an alternative for athiests?
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The English legal system always offers the alternatives of 'swearing' (on the Bible) or 'affirming' (which does not involve any reference to religion).
I have given evidence in both Magistrate's and Crown Court cases and, as an atheist, I've always chosen to affirm.
However, you don't have to get anywhere near a court to be required to make the choice. When I sold a house, the buyer's solicitor required that I should colour a plan showing the rights of way of to, and across, the property. He also required that I should take the plan to a commissioner for oaths and swear that I'd provided the information accurately. When I told the commissioner that I was an atheist, I was allowed to affirm, rather than to swear an oath.
Similarly, when I sought probate for my late father's will, the Probate Office were happy for me to affirm, rather than swear, that I had provided them with accurate information.
Chris
I have given evidence in both Magistrate's and Crown Court cases and, as an atheist, I've always chosen to affirm.
However, you don't have to get anywhere near a court to be required to make the choice. When I sold a house, the buyer's solicitor required that I should colour a plan showing the rights of way of to, and across, the property. He also required that I should take the plan to a commissioner for oaths and swear that I'd provided the information accurately. When I told the commissioner that I was an atheist, I was allowed to affirm, rather than to swear an oath.
Similarly, when I sought probate for my late father's will, the Probate Office were happy for me to affirm, rather than swear, that I had provided them with accurate information.
Chris
�I, (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm
that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth�.
I didn't actually remember that. I had to Google it:
http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/pdfs/interp reters/Interpreter_Appendix.pdf
Chris
that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth�.
I didn't actually remember that. I had to Google it:
http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/pdfs/interp reters/Interpreter_Appendix.pdf
Chris
As a solicitor i do a lot of swears. In our office it's always done on a copy of the bible and the person swearin reads out the appropriate phrase ie "i swear by almighty god..."
Have never had anyone question it, these days I always point out that it is a criminal offence to swear a false stat dec which I find has far more meaningful effect.
Have never had anyone question it, these days I always point out that it is a criminal offence to swear a false stat dec which I find has far more meaningful effect.
I had always thought that swearing on the bible was a kind of guarantee, in that the person swearing understood that if they bore false witness they faced not only punishment here but in eternity as well.
If you have someone who is non christian though, using the bible doesn't really hold the same force does it ?
This is what I am getting at.... wouldn't it make more sense to offer alternative religious works for the different major denominations, and some other kind of binding commitment for atheists?
In the US, there is an ongoing debate about enshrining the need for prospective public servants to swear on the bible, irrespective of their religion which seems slightly absurd to me.
If you have someone who is non christian though, using the bible doesn't really hold the same force does it ?
This is what I am getting at.... wouldn't it make more sense to offer alternative religious works for the different major denominations, and some other kind of binding commitment for atheists?
In the US, there is an ongoing debate about enshrining the need for prospective public servants to swear on the bible, irrespective of their religion which seems slightly absurd to me.
As a Christian and a firm believer in our legal system I have issues regarding the whole swearing/affirmation scenario.
For example the defendant swears aswell as any witnesses.
In a criminal court the dictum is "can it be proved beyond all resonable doubt" HOGWASH. In reality it boils down to who is telling the truth and who is a covincing liar.
Say a simple assault case. The evidence for is a victim has an injury with medical reports and the defendant had blood on his knuckles matching the victim.
The defendant however says he was acting in self defence (stone bonker defence)
Somebody is therefore lying!!!!
If a defendant goes guilty there is more often no need for a full trial hence no swearing.
My point is in the vast majority of cases somebody (either victim or defendant) is lying. Whether they are under oath makes no difference.
Say, the above was found guilty of assault because the magistrate or jury saw through his lies. He has therefore committed perjury, which is far more serious than an assault. They are never prosecuted for perjury however.
The whole oath thing is meaningless pants.
Does that make sense?
For example the defendant swears aswell as any witnesses.
In a criminal court the dictum is "can it be proved beyond all resonable doubt" HOGWASH. In reality it boils down to who is telling the truth and who is a covincing liar.
Say a simple assault case. The evidence for is a victim has an injury with medical reports and the defendant had blood on his knuckles matching the victim.
The defendant however says he was acting in self defence (stone bonker defence)
Somebody is therefore lying!!!!
If a defendant goes guilty there is more often no need for a full trial hence no swearing.
My point is in the vast majority of cases somebody (either victim or defendant) is lying. Whether they are under oath makes no difference.
Say, the above was found guilty of assault because the magistrate or jury saw through his lies. He has therefore committed perjury, which is far more serious than an assault. They are never prosecuted for perjury however.
The whole oath thing is meaningless pants.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for your input Wardy, and I do understand from your post where you are coming from. Given that people will lie and dissemble in court to either prove or deny claims with the existing system in place, I would agree that on the surface at least it does seem pretty pointless having a swearing in or an affirmation process.
Such a process has become ingrained in the legal and public service sectors now however. I was just curious as to whether any provision was made for non christians within the existing system.
Such a process has become ingrained in the legal and public service sectors now however. I was just curious as to whether any provision was made for non christians within the existing system.
1 to 9 of 9
