Jersey Girl wrote:Hello Folks!
I've been following the Casey Anthony murder trial (commenting on it in the Old Testament here on MDB) and got to thinking about the oath taken prior to giving testimony in US Courts.
The oath goes something like this...
"Do you solemnly affirm or swear to tell the truth and the whole truth so help you God?"
Question for Atheists: Okay, this is obvious, but how do you think you would feel about taking such an oath?
Thanks,
Jersey Girl
:-)
-----------------------------
“The truth” in any complex situation is often relative to the perspective of the observer. As a witness in court, one may be obligated to answer only the questions asked. Such answers, absent the opportunity to qualify those answers, may, in themselves, be misleading or make a witness appear to state that which compromises his/her position or perspective.
Second, whether one is an atheist or not is irrelevant since the affirmation as in “affirm” that answers are true is applicable regardless of that persons religious affiliation or lack of it. The word “or” in the admonition is inclusive. If one affirms that he/she will be truthful, it’s equal to swearing to be truthful.
In addition, and related to what witnesses state, is a jury’s perception of reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? That may depend largely on how effective the prosecution was or the defense was. Further, what is “reasonable” to one person may not be reasonable to another. A jury which is required to have unanimous consent may be unable to achieve that. While all members of the jury were exposed to the same things, individuals may weigh specific evidence more heavily than other individuals on the same jury.
We know that there are people convicted and in jail for crimes they did not commit. Conversely, we also know there are people who are entirely free who have committed crimes for which they would be in jail if they had been found and tried. Justice is not equal nor absolute.
It is unlikely that all witnesses know the “whole truth.” Contradictory testimony is evidence of that. Confronted with contradictory evidence, the jury must weigh what it has heard. There are a significant number of hung juries as well as rulings for a mistrial.
This is with the very case in mind which you present as example. In the O.J. Simpson case, the jury did not accept DNA evidence for example. Today, most juries do accept such evidence.
If one swears or affirms to tell the truth, such a person is telling the court that he/she will tell the truth (to the best of his/her capacity to do that) given the questions presented by the dueling lawyers. If a jury is 11 to 1 for a verdict, the pressure on that one is intense to cave in to the other 11 jurors. After 30 days of trial and absence from one’s own life, it’s most difficult if not impossible for a single juror to hold out.
JAK