by Lucius Trae

Created on: March 28, 2010

While those unwilling to swear on the Bible have other options, members of other faiths might have issues with this. By requesting another method of swearing, they may draw attention to religious beliefs that would otherwise have gone unknown, presumably. The jury process tries to weed out people who are discriminatory, but it is not flawless. A devout person, for instance, might have to choose between biasing the opinion of a jury and swearing on a book contrary to their faith.

Personally, I have no major issues with the book itself being used for swearing ceremonies in courts. I think it should not be used because "swearing ceremonies in courtrooms" are absolutely ridiculous. People are forced to swear to tell the truth in court or risk punishment. While there are some people who never break their word, but this is a minority of people. Most people will lie if they think they have good reasons to do so.

Furthermore, if someone held me at gunpoint and made me sign over my assets, I could regain them in court. Agreements made because of direct coercion are not legally binding if provable. The court seems to feel it's above the laws it sets for others. Forcing someone to swear to tell the truth doesn't create a morally obligation to do so. Again, if someone is forced to "be honest" to a murderer about the location of a child, it's more than permissible to lie. A binding contract can't emerge, from a moral standpoint, without the two parties agreeing from a position of mutual respect and equality.

If we keep swearing-in ceremonies, a lot of people will continue lying. A small portion of people will never break an oath even if it's in their best interests. So by letting everyone else lie, the individual with a particular set of beliefs is put at a disadvantage. The honest, or perhaps excessively honest, will admit that "I helped commit the crime." Their partner will have been pointed out. A quick-witted lawyer will ask questions like "would your partner have done this without you?" Obviously, it was a two person operation. The honest criminal, who stole for their own reasons, will be manipulated. Meanwhile, their partner will lie when asked all the same questions, perhaps even getting a lesser sentence than the honest person.

One can see how all kinds of court cases, even cases where a person is innocent, could be manipulated into providing a verdict of guilty despite a lack of evidence. Using something other than the Bible will make a religious Christian, perhaps, feel awkward or unfaithful. Forcing them to swear "on the Bible" is an exploitation of their religious viewpoints. This could potential force good people into unfortunate situations simply for "being honest." The Bible shouldn't be used because the swearing-in ceremony should be removed.

Learn more about this author, Lucius Trae.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.