Report this comment to a moderator

Please can we stop religious oaths in the legal process?

Let us assume for a moment that there are people who might be comfortable perjuring themselves in the eyes of the law, but who would not lie having sworn a religious oath. It follows from that assumption that justice is better served if those people swear a religious oath. Giving them the option of a religious oath on top of an affirmation doesn’t achieve the desired goal, because those who are about to lie will choose not to swear the additional religious oath. The same is true if there were to be a choice between affirmation or religious oath. The desired effect is achieved only if the oath is required for all except those who “object” to such a ritual (in effect, renouncing/denying their belief). I am sure that the opening assumption has some validity. I suspect it is less far-reaching than it once was, but I doubt that its reach has diminished sufficiently to make it worthless.

10-Feb-2012

5:40 pm