Should the concept of "perjury" (lying under oath) even be a factor in US courts?

Question

I ask this because although many people have lost sight of this, and now many consider this to be a "Christian Nation", the fact is that the first 6 presidents (founding fathers) were NOT Christian. As a matter of fact, George Washington made a point of stating that is country is not founded on Christianity. The first settlers came here in part to escape the forced Catholicism of England. The first 6 presidents were actually "diests". They did not believe in the Bible, but rather believed that there was once a diety who created the Earth, put everything on it that man could possibly need, and then the Diety disappeared to leave mankind to use their brains and figure out how to put things to use to live and survive, etc...

Anyway, just a little background for the basis of my question. The origin of the law that was written forcing a witness to "swear under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth......" came directly from the Bible. One of the 10 commandments says something like

'thou shall not bear false witness' or 'thou shalt not give false testamony' - depending on which version you read. And the definition of the word "Oath", is to the effect that an oath is stronger than a promise. That it has been witnessed by more than just another person, but a God also.

So, if this country was not originally established to bring religion into the court system or the schools (separation of church an state), then jailing a citizen for contempt of court for either refusing to accept the oath, or to ignore it really does not seem valid. Technically, the way I see it, "Perjury" is something that should not exist in a courtroom. However, it seems as if that is the only place it exists.

How did this happen, and what do you guys think of it?

Answer 1

While your points concerning the Founders and their religious perspectives are valid, the leap to, “committing perjury under oath” as evolved from Christian dogma is less authoritative. This has a more legitimate connection to Magna Carta and the Common Law (Old English Celtic and Saxon Village Law) from which it evolved. While at the time of Magna Carta Christian influence existed within England, Common Law and its evolution predate Christianity. For example, prior to Magna Carta (the Carucage of 1198), “explains that for perjury a villein forfeited his best ox to his lord (not to the King).”

Perjury has always been a serious offense as a matter of law as part of the glue which holds societies together world wide and far exceeds the origin of Christianity.

Answer 2

MasterAir is right... perjury is a crime, and has little to do with the christian dislike of lies. Its absolutely vital that perjury remains a crime. Very serious things happen in courtrooms - people lose their liberty and sometimes their life. Its essential that judges and juries hear true evidence, and fear of prosecution for perjury is a good motivator.

And MeWho is completely wrong, just like everyone else who knows nothing about the law, but talks as if they're an expert. A jury of twelve Americans acquitted OJ simpson, not a dodgy lawyer. When people have actually heard the evidence presented, then they can decide guilt and innocence. Lawyers are acutally honest when in court: one lie in court loses them their licence to practice forever. And the story about George Washington cutting down the tree is well known to be a myth, it was created out of thin air by a biographer. (Bill Bryson, 1997, Made in America, Minerva, pp 73-4)

(sorry to rant in your question, but MeWho doesnt allow messages so I cant tell them direct)

Answer 3

It's not entirely clear what you're "asking", as it got lost a little in your wish to declaim instead. Of course perjury should be factor in courts; it is asinine to argue otherwise. Even under oath, people lie and equivocate, requiring cross-examination and other proofs to test the reliability of evidence. You seem to propose removing all threats of penalty against those who deliberately mislead the lawful authorities in matters of serious import, which is one of the most clownish, unconsidered suggestions I have ever heard.

If you're objecting to the use of religious-based oaths for witness testimony:

When a person is required to take an oath for any public purpose (e.g., giving testimony, taking office), that individual has a right to object to giving an oath that is religious in nature, no matter what their reasons are. (Some religious people object to this more strenuously than many non-religious people, as they believe it violates the precepts of their faith.) The Federal Rules of Evidence and the case law that has developed around them make it clear that a person can make an oath or affirmation in any form that is reasonably understood to indicate to that individual the seriousness of the matter they are engaged in and the grave expectation of truth that is expected of them in their statements. No mention of religion, use of a Bible or other text, or the like are mandatory in our courts or those of most developed nations. (The European Court of Human Rights has made specific rulings on this issue, too, coming to basically the same rule that we have.) If a person objects to making a religious-based oath, some alternative will be provided, unless that particular court's employees are failing to do their job correctly.

If you think the idea of witnesses being expected to tell the truth is "from the Bible" exclusively and think it's wrong to impose that rule on secular courts, you are simply wrong on your legal history. The truth of witnesses -- and of citizens generally -- has been called for in legal proceedings of many cultures, including quite a few that are contemporary with or earlier than the Jewish Commandments.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, but our legal system is unlikely to be improved by the suggestions of those who have so little knowledge about how it works and what its rules really are. You would probably be well-served by researching these issues before trying to formulate an argument (which is what you did, notwithstanding that it began with a question).

Answer 4

nicely, there are a gaggle of questions right here, so in my frequently used perverse way (not interior the DatelineSence) i'm going to respond to the lat one first. invoice did his maximum suitable to avert attesting below oath. He lost. Ther are 3 subject concerns in touch interior the testimony being required. a million)That this is public, so as that not purely the investigators, however the yank human beings ahve the oppertunity to computer screen the demeanor of the respondents. The white abode has wisely surmised that this would possibly not pass nicely for them. 2)that this is below oath, so as that the respondent could be prosecuted in the event that they lie 3)that this is recorded, so as that comparisons between the testimony and the data being subpoena'ed could be made. of direction, with an extremely conservative preferrred courtroom in place, I even have my doubts that the White abode willbe compelled to grant this testimony. there's no honestly provision for "govt privilege" interior the form, so the project right this is that compelling testimony might volume to a minimum of one branch of the government interfereing with yet another branch. of direction, in the two the Nixon and Clinton situations, the Supremes (the courtroom, not the 60's making a music group) rulled that compelling testimony did not violate the form, so the courtroom might could desire to locate flaws in those judgements, to avert the testimony of White abode officers.

Answer 5

Of course it is vitally important that lying under oath is a crime. Otherwise how can the judge and jury decide based on the evidence of the witnesses whether or not an individual is guilty.

The fact that one has to swear on the bible is a debatable point.

In my opinion the fact that a witness has to swear on the bible is a matter of tradition rather than a show of piety. Though I am sure many will disagree with that statement.

Answer 6

Perjury should be continued but people should not lie when taking oath and stop hiding undercover by power and money.

Answer 7

PERJURY IS NOT A CONCEPT, IT IS A CRIME. IT IS AND SHOULD BE.IT'S JUST TO BAD THAT LAWYERS CAN WALK INTO A COURTROOM AND BLOW SMOKE OUT OF THEIR ***,THEN MAYBE PEOPLE LIKE O.J.SIMPSON WOULDN'T BE WALKING AROUND FREE.MY ONLY SATISFACTION IN THAT CASE IS THAT HE STILL GETS TO DIE AND FACE GOD.[THE MOST SUPREME JUDGE!] P.S. GEORGE WASHINGTON ALSO STATED"I CANNOT TELL A LIE!!!"

Answer 8

So I guess we should allow people to kill one another since murder is based on that little "Thou shall not kill." commandment.