It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question about giving testimony in court

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Ok, I wanted to know if someone is Religious, someone awaiting trial and they are put on the stand, why they don't swear on the bible but instead take an affirmation?

Is this so that they can lie on the stand when giving their testimony?

Or is it really because they aren't allowed to swear on the bible?




posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

In the Bible it is written:

Matt 5:33“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. g


So when the time comes "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole …"
I'll say "No".

Edit to add:

It is pretty plain in Wikipedia: Affirmation_in_law

In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath. Some religious minorities hold beliefs that allow them to make legally binding promises but forbid them to swear an oath before a deity. Additionally, many decline to make a religious oath because they feel that to do so would be valueless or inappropriate, especially in secular courts. In some jurisdictions, an affirmation may be given only if such a reason is provided.

So no. It isn't for the purpose of permitting false testimony.

And why is whether someone puts their hand on a Bible or other text an issue? Dictionaries should be just as good a book as any IMHO.
edit on 5-6-2019 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
I think not swearing on the Bible began with the Quakers, because of their pedantic interpretation of the injunction "Do not swear". The same claim was then made by atheists and others who don't believe in the Bible.
To be fair, swearing in God's name could have no effect on people who don't believe in God, so there's no point in demanding it.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Swearing on the Bible is only relevant for those who are going to try and tell the truth.

A liar will swear on the Bible and still lie.

I think that swearing on the Bible is more for the rest of the court who want to feel that whoever is on the stand is being truthful. Part of the presumption of innocence, perhaps. It doesn't make them so.

That is why there is cross-examination, to try and catch them in a lie.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I did a deposition yesterday. I just held my hand up. There was no bible



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
In this day and age the Bible is purely symbolic . It’s your oath that carries the weight .

You make a promise to tell the truth before the court and swear you will.

It is a declaration to the court not God which makes you voluntarily agree to the penalty of perjury .

You could be sworn in on a mad magazine and it would make no difference.

It’s also a double edge sword. If you refuse to take a oath you can also be held for contempt of court.

if you go to court you’re going to have to take an oath. If you’re gonna lie make damn sure you remember the lies. If not there’s a chance you’re going to be in a world of hurt .



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

In the Bible it is written:

Matt 5:33“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. g


So when the time comes "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole …"
I'll say "No".

...



No doubt it is an antiquated process, but that action will get you charged with Contempt of Court if you continue to do it after they ask you the second time.



posted on Jun, 5 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I would consider that the court was not serious in its attempt to secure my testimony if they did not at least ask me for an alternative formula of words.

See UNITED STATES v Ward

11
The court's interest in administering its precise form of oath must yield to Ward's First Amendment rights. To begin with, there is no constitutionally or statutorily required form of oath. Federal Rule of Evidence 603 requires only that a witness "declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so." The advisory committee notes to Rule 603 explain that "the rule is designed to afford the flexibility required in dealing with religious adults, atheists, conscientious objectors, mental defectives, and children. Affirmation is simply a solemn undertaking to tell the truth; no special verbal formula is required." This rule represents no break with the common law, which recognized that

12
the oath's efficacy may depend upon both the general name and nature of the witness' faith and the formula of words or ceremonies which he considers as binding, i.e., as subjecting him to the risk of punishment. But it cannot matter what tenets of theological belief or what ecclesiastical organization he adheres to, provided the above essentials are fulfilled, and it cannot matter what words or ceremonies are used in imposing the oath, provided he recognizes them as binding by his belief.



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Does a liar care if they are sworn to tell the truth?



posted on Jun, 6 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Does a liar care if they are sworn to tell the truth?




That was a good one




top topics



 
1

log in

join