Magistrates have missed their chance to join the 21st century
News is a cruel mistress. This morning, I was surprised and rather delighted to read a BBC report on a motion to end the practice of swearing an oath on the Bible or other holy book, and to replace it with a secular, non-specific recognition of the responsibility to tell the truth and the potential consequences for not doing so. By this evening, that move had been rejected, preserving the status quo. That’s right, raise my hopes and then dash them, why don’t you?
What annoys me about this isn’t so much the continuation of a long-standing practice, seeing that different groups are allowed to make promises appropriate to their beliefs, but the arguments given in favour of it. Those who supported the old oath (including, inevitably, church leaders) claim that swearing on the Bible strengthens witnesses’ evidence. Nick Freeman, a solicitor known as “Mr Loophole” for his brass-necked efforts to defend celebrity clients, expressed this point of view very succinctly:
“Evidence must be strengthened if people swear on religious texts,” said Mr Freeman. “The way you stamp out lying under oath is to punish people who do so, not to get rid of the religious oath. By changing it you are depriving people with a religious faith of the chance to reinforce their evidence by swearing on their religious text.”
Just ponder that one for a minute. Is it just me, or is he implying very heavily that swearing an oath on a religious text (a curious practice in itself seeing that Jesus wasn’t all that keen on that sort of thing) gives your evidence greater weight? He presumably thinks that this is self-evidently positive, but where does that leave atheist witnesses? It surely can’t be his deliberate intention to relegate atheists to a second tier of reliability or truthfulness.
If swearing on a holy book does reinforce the testimony of witnesses over and above some other form of affirmation, that in itself should be sufficient reason to dispense with the practice. There can be no hope of impartial justice when verdicts can be swayed by the theological positions of the people involved.
On the other hand, if there’s no difference in the weight that should be applied to the testimony of people from different religious backgrounds, what’s the benefit of the current arrangement? At best, it unnecessarily intrudes into the irrelevant details of a witness’s personal beliefs by forcing them to choose the oath that’s most appropriate or meaningful to them.
It could be argued that the current arrangements both treat all testimony equally and are better than the proposed secular alternative, but it’s hard to understand how that could be, when atheists would end up taking virtually identical oaths under either system. The idea that evidence is strengthened by swearing on religious texts also raises the terrifying possibility that believers are only likely to tell the truth if they think their god’s keeping a close eye on them.
I’ve never previously considered the swearing in of witnesses to be a big issue of equality and fairness, but if the arguments made here are typical, I may have to reassess that view.