It is reported today that pressure is being applied to the Duke of York to make a statement about allegations of sexual misbehaviour that have been made against him. Interestingly the statement 'should be on oath'.
In today's resolutely secular Britain a vanishingly small percentage of people would feel that their chance of going to heaven might hang on whether or not they lied on oath. These days I would guess that around half of witnesses choose to affirm rather than take a religious oath.
Anyone who has spent much time in a Magistrates' Court will be well aware of the blithe way in which many people who have sworn to tell the truth go ahead to lie through their teeth.
I think you are over analysing the reported wording!
ReplyDeletePeople not familiar with the courts will refer to Affirming as "Swearing an oath" even without the mention of God. I would estimate it is only about 1 in 10 civi witnesses who affirm in my court. I am sure there is regional variation. The ratio is higher with experienced / professional / police witnesses who are familiar with the system. I doubt many of the people who take the Oath are actually religious or even believe in a deity but they simply have no objection to mentioning God or don't really understand the alternative.
I always make a point of asking "novice" witnesses if they understand the significance of having taken the Oath (or Affirmation) - and that lying could result in a prison sentence - I've never hinted it might result in a penalty after "this life".
Perhaps American justice hasn't yet caught up with the notion of affirmation rather than swearing an oath..
ReplyDeleteActually, it's baked into our legal system, thanks to yours. The phrase "solemnly swear (or affirm)" - giving the taker the option of using either form - appears in the oath of office in the US constitution. Interestingly, in colonial times, the option to affirm wasn't as much for the benefit of atheists as it was for members of religious sects (such as the Quakers) who believed it was a blasphemous violation of the 2nd commandment to swear an oath before God. The English legal system already provided the option of affirming at the time of our founding, so it carried over from the beginning.
DeleteYes, but can you be prosecuted for perjury, if you're not 'on oath'? Our judges purport to believe that is what makes the difference.( It doesn't really, and they know it) On the other hand, a substantial portion of the untruths I have heard in court were from witnesses who were not lying. They were stubborn, stupid, deluded, biased, but honest. I remember an old lady who swore she could tell that some bank notes of small value, found in the possession of the accused , were the very notes she had had in her purse at the time of being pick pocketed. They were perfectly ordinary notes, in no way to be distinguished from several millions of others circulating, no serial number she had paid attention to, no scribbled note on any of them, no unusual crease, no tear, no blot, no smell, no nothing : she ruled out each of these quite firmly, but still maintained she could tell they were her own. What perjurer worth a pinch of salt wouldn't have qualified such a statement a little, just to be safe. Not she.
ReplyDeleteA magistrate I knew was prone to remark "There are more lies told in the witness box than any other square foot of the petty sessions area".
ReplyDeleteThe current affirmation so woefully fails the Plain English test it is embarrassing to administer. What's wrong with "I promise to tell the truth and I understand I can go to prison if I don't"?
Common issue, I'm afraid. Ours is so worded that witnesses cannot seem to read and understand it at the same time, so that they put the weirdest malapropisms in it; and judges routinely clinch the matter ( and the giggles in the courtroom) by saying "Now then, you must tell the truth or else."
DeleteNothing at all- Drop a note to Lord Leveson he might like to hear from you!
DeleteDoesn't his denial smack of a rather 'Clintonesque' 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'?
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that it's probably just as believable - as if making it under oath would make the blindest bit of difference.
Why should he answer to a demand that he deny something on oath.
ReplyDelete