It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by D.Wolf
I don't think they let trolls to become magistrate, but you know your surroundings better than me.
Originally posted by TheChosenKing
I rebuke you in the name of Jesus I have cured the atheist spirit before ,you need to go to your local pastor... [sic]
When a witness refuses to swear to God, the court accepts an "affirmation" instead. In a jury trial, the smart lawyer will arrange for this ahead of time in the judge's chambers, so the witness won't look unduly obstreperous or morally deficient in open court. The judge may then instruct the jury that the funny oath they are about to hear should be considered legally valid.
Polygraph testing is currently being used to determine whether sex offenders are ready to be released from prison and will continue to be used as a pilot in certain areas of England and Wales for two more years. Whether this will alter the opinion on court use remains to be seen. Lie detector results can be admissible in some tribunal and civil cases, but their introduction into criminal courts would require legislation.
Originally posted by spyder550
Originally posted by grainofsand
Originally posted by spyder550
I am in Georgia - I have never seen a bible used, and I think I would have noticed it. My daughter is clerk of courts I will ask. You can always call the clerks office and find out what they do then you can decide. An affirmation that you are going to tell the truth is all that is required.
I'm in the UK.
You are correct, an affirmation is all that is required, my concern is with the religious belief question being raised for anyone prior to giving evidence. An individual promising to tell the truth is making a personal affirmation to the court, religious belief information should not be required for such a statement.
I would think an attorney would rather not bring religion into it. Unlike the UK being an atheist in the US is a big problem. Just look at our political process.
Originally posted by Wonders
I'm surprised that no one has brought this up yet.
If you're really dead set against the bible in court, don't be AFRAID to "force" this verse "down their throats".
But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, -Matthew 5:34
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by grainofsand
As others have stated you need only affirm that you will tell the truth. There have been cases of people who for religious reasons are not allowed to swear- especially on the bible. In such cases they are only required to hold up their right hand and affirm that they will tell the truth to the best of their ability.
Originally posted by Pinke
Originally posted by D.Wolf
I don't think they let trolls to become magistrate, but you know your surroundings better than me.
Some judges do appear to be trolls.
OP shouldn't have to compromise, but if it was the choice between saying 'I believe in God' and having a bad outcome for a loved one ... I imagine a lot of people would make the 'practical' decision.
Originally posted by adjensen
For the love of pete...
Does no one know how to use google?
Entering "atheist swear in court" results in: How do courts swear in atheists? on "The Straight Dope".
When a witness refuses to swear to God, the court accepts an "affirmation" instead. In a jury trial, the smart lawyer will arrange for this ahead of time in the judge's chambers, so the witness won't look unduly obstreperous or morally deficient in open court. The judge may then instruct the jury that the funny oath they are about to hear should be considered legally valid.
You don't need to swear on a Bible, stop sweating it.
Originally posted by grainofsand
Originally posted by Toromos
Having served on two criminal juries, I think you might be overthinking the impact of bible/no bible. There is so much to pay attention to in a case the oath is just a blur of memory.
No jury, a bench of 3 magistrates.
I agree any influence would likely be minimal, but that is an assertion. I do not know this.
The forced question of faith or not is questionable though while it is asked, no matter how small the risk of influence.
Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
Presuming you are wanting to tell the truth and no lies - choose BOTH (unless you truly are deeply religious ... because swearing on the bible is AGAINST the bible - swear on nothing in heaven or on earth. )
By choosing BOTH - you show your word is as high as your faith (or lack thereof).
edit on 9/1/2013 by Trexter Ziam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by luciddream
I would refuse to do it and say that this is no difference than harry potter book to me.
isn't the whole process actually forcing a religion on you?
Originally posted by DAVID64
Originally posted by grainofsand
Originally posted by Toromos
Having served on two criminal juries, I think you might be overthinking the impact of bible/no bible. There is so much to pay attention to in a case the oath is just a blur of memory.
No jury, a bench of 3 magistrates.
I agree any influence would likely be minimal, but that is an assertion. I do not know this.
The forced question of faith or not is questionable though while it is asked, no matter how small the risk of influence.
If they let your faith, or lack of, influence their decision, that reflects more on them than you. People lie on the stand, bible or no. If your word is not good enough for them, I don't see how a book would help them believe you.