Report this comment to a moderator

Please can we stop religious oaths in the legal process?

All it should need is a formal and explicit warning given by the judge to the witness of the consequences of perjury and then equally explicit affirmation by the witness that they fully understand this. Differentiating between oaths and affirmations merely creates artificial distinction, which could be prejudicial to the perceived credibility of a witness' evidence, particularly in jury trials, where adverse inference could be drawn when someone 'objects' to giving evidence under oath. Oaths are anachronistic, unnecessary and offensive to some, whether they are religious or not. Affirmations should be standard, in my view, and also with no option to supplement one with a (potentially) quasi religious 'oath' (which could be open to abuse by non-religious witnesses with a view to elevating their testimony).

14-Feb-2012

1:58 pm