Is it justified ?
By bhanusb
@bhanusb (5709)
India
May 24, 2009 1:25pm CST
In the court the witness by touching the Holy Book takes oath before the judge that he or she will not tell a lie and his or her testimony will be true. But very often the witness tells lie at the advice of his or her lawyer. I think this custom is the insult of Holy Religious Book. Is it justified to maintain this tradition?
2 responses
@phyrre (2317)
• United States
25 May 09
Well, I think there's a problem with people swearing on the Bible to begin with. There is an increasing amount of people that don't believe in the Bible or aren't Christian and so they may not take an oath on the Bible seriously because they don't believe in the holiness of it.
I think oaths in court are kind of pointless at this point in time. It's gotten to the point where everyone expects people to lie even after they take an oath, so what good is it really doing? How do you know if they're really telling the truth or if they want to see that person convicted for whatever reasons, so they're just saying whatever they want.
They would do better to take the oath over the Bible out and simply just use a lie detector machine. it would be so much simpler and significantly more effective.
@savypat (20216)
• United States
24 May 09
I think this is a left over from when people's word meant something. Now if we want to get the truth we need to wire them up so that any indication of a lie shows on a scan, can you envision that in the court room?
