Defendants swearing a secular oath more likely to be found guilty
New study looks at juror bias
Taking a secular oath or refusing to swear one can influence whether a jury believes you, a new study has found.
The research revealed a bias in jurors choosing to swear on the Bible who were found to be more likely to return a guilty verdict if the defendant takes a secular affirmation.
Both religious oaths and secular affirmations are equally legally binding and start with a pledge to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. However, the key difference is that the secular affirmation begins with “I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm,” whereas the religious version opens with “I swear by Almighty God”.
The research published in The British Journal of Psychology was a collaboration from researchers at Royal Holloway, Brunel University, and Bristol University. They conducted a mock trial where the 1,821 study participants were asked to act as jurors.
They uncovered three key findings, firstly that court witnesses who choose to swear an oath are more religious than those who choose the secular affirmation, but 20% of those swearing the oath did so because they believed it was the “more credible choice”.
The second finding was that a defendant’s choice between oath or affirmation can influence perceptions of their probable guilt, with those taking the affirmation perceived as slightly more likely to be guilty.
Finally, the research found that these biased perceptions of guilt were enough to influence the outcome of a trial. Participants that swore an oath were shown to discriminate against an affirming defendant, whereas participants that swore an affirmation showed no discernible bias against affirming or oath-swearing defendants.
The study has been highlighted by Humanists UK, a non-religious charity, as evidence that the religious oath should either be abolished or sworn in private.
Professor Ryan McKay, the study’s lead author, commented:
“If taking the oath is seen as a sign of credibility, this could lead to discrimination against defendants who are not willing to swear by God. An earlier proposal to abolish the oath in England and Wales was defeated when opponents argued that the oath strengthens the value of witnesses’ evidence. This is ironic, as it seems to acknowledge that swearing an oath may give an advantage in court.”
Professor McKay refers to a 2013 proposal to abolish the requirement for witnesses to swear an oath on any holy book, which was rejected by the Magistrates’ Association.
For all the latest commercial awareness info, news and careers advice:Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter
Christians are called to be honest and live moral lives. Christians believe in objective truth and morality.
So it is no surprise they are more likely to be found not guilty than secularists.
…it depends what parts of their faith/the Bible they pick and choose as their ‘objective truth’ doesn’t it.
For example, if they just take the nice bits that everyone already agrees with – don’t lie/don’t murder/do to others as you would have them do to you etc – then that’s fine.
But what if they also take the bit that says that homosexuality is sinful? Or that murdering people is absolutely fine if God tells you to do it (like Abraham). What then?
Uninformed take which upvoted by people similarly uninformed on the Christian faith.
An overwhelming majority of Christians around the world can’t pick and choose what they believe or treat as objective because they are part of magisterial churches with definitive teachings, e.g. catholic, orthodox.
Also anyone who picked and chose what they believed, wouldn’t be Christian would they. They’d just be people who believed what they wanted. That isn’t Christianity at all, which demands belief of core doctrines
Legal cheek where the fuck are you picking your readers from. This is making me want pivot out of my career as a solicitor before it even starts. Also this is obviously a discriminatory view against anyone who isn’t a christian based on religion/belief, which is a protected characteristic
that is simply not true, and an insult. It doesn’t require religious belief to have strong values. And religious beliefs (or professed religious beliefs) do not guarantee honesty.
or there would be no Christian criminals.