Thursday 21st May 1999: Cussing in Court

[Feefers]

[Cactus Jack]

She never actually said yes. She can lie as much as she wants.

[Bocaj Claw]

"The whole truth" is kind of an overbroad category.

[IceDragon]

"The whole truth" is kind of an overbroad category.

But a Lie of omission is still a lie...

[Tom_Radigan]

"The whole truth" is kind of an overbroad category.

But a Lie of omission is still a lie...

In other words, one is not supposed to tell part of the truth to give the impression of one thing when the entire story says otherwise.

[Muninn]

Just curious, what do people who aren't Christian swear to? I thought you just raised your hand and swore, not placed it on a religious book.

[Æron]

There have been exceptions in the past. I don't know of any court-related oaths being done this way, but President John Adams was sworn into office on a law book with a copy of the US constitution inside. More recently, a politician from Minnesota who was Muslim was going to be sworn in on the Koran. People started making a fuss over this being un-American or some other bullshit like that, including member of Congress. (It's almost as if they've never heard the very first phrase of the Bill of Rights!). So he swore in on Thomas Jefferson's Koran. Which is what I call an EPIC WIN, even though I don't agree with the idea of people being sworn in on religious texts. It's still a step towards breaking up the discrimination against non-Christians in US politics.

If I ever have to be sworn in, I will be doing it on a copy of the US constitution. Or I won't be swearing in at all.

[nickspoon]

In the UK, it is permissible to either swear by a religious text or entity:

"I swear by <name of deity or scripture> that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Or simply to make an affirmation:

"I 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."

Both of these are legally equivalent. The aim is to ensure that the witness feels bound by conscience to be honest.

[Tom_Radigan]

Both of these are legally equivalent. The aim is to ensure that the witness feels bound by conscience to be honest.

I thought the aim was to let the witness know in no uncertain terms that giving false testimony was illegal and could result in criminal prosecution and punishment.

[nickspoon]

Both of these are legally equivalent. The aim is to ensure that the witness feels bound by conscience to be honest.

I thought the aim was to let the witness know in no uncertain terms that giving false testimony was illegal and could result in criminal prosecution and punishment.

That's the reason that contempt of court exists; the oath is there to help avoid the need to use that. Although the oath is legally binding, the actual wording is supposed to be set in a way that is conscientiously binding. Otherwise one could just have "I affirm that this testimony is honest" or something and leave it at that.