Talk:Oath

Untitled
What is the name of the oath called that one has to take before testifying in court? Does it have one? RJII 02:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The conventional wording of the courtroom oath contains a qualification (in bold below) that bears scrutiny:
 * I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...
 * The words in bold above seem to demand a practical impossibility (since no one should claim to be omniscient) and seem to be an attempt to preempt a witness's option to lie by omission. I suggest that an honest person before examination need say no more than "I promise to tell the truth" because it is the examiner's duty to pose appropriate questions about the issue at trial.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the people who refuse to take oaths based on their personal beliefs? Shouldn't this article have information on their views? It should probably include the "swear" vs "affirm" issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.1.42.30 (talk • contribs) 12:09, May 24, 2006  (UTC)

Where did most of the information from the 1911 Encyclopedia article go? Was it all deemed untrustworthy? That seems unlikely; right now http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Oath has a lot more information than is here, or apparent in the See also section... -- nae'blis 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Blood oath
Wikipedia lacks an article on blood oath (ritual). Perhaps merely a section within the present article would suffice to begin with? __meco (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Giving an oath
Perhaps there should be something on who can 'preside' over someone taking an oath (eg. the U.S. Supreme Court Justice at Presidential Inauguration). Does anyone actually have to be present? - 121.208.90.59 (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguement against oathing
If a court orders an oath, then it creates a paradoxical situation. A person can be done for perjury relating a crime they are wrongly accused of and found guilty of. If there is a perception by the accused, that they will be found guilty when they are innocent, they will take the oath and tell a lie (which seems like the truth to the accusers) to avoid punishment relating to the oath, which in turn aids a miscarriage of justice. This added miscarriage of justice not only punishes the wrong person more, but leaves other potential victims of abuse to carry on being abused by the real criminal whom is unpunished. It is on this determination that I decided that a liar cannot be punished; unless it is for reasons not relating to them defending themselves from justice being implemented against them, where that lie causes damage or harm (for instance pretending that a person is not desperate for an ambulance when they are dying) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.201.108 (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Profanity" vs "oath"?
Is it a specific of the English language that the meanings "profanity" and "oath" have blended in some words, such as "swear" and "curse"? Or is this common across languages? Please add this info if you have it! -- 92.229.155.131 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of BC/AD in one section of article
From WP:ERA: "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article. Exception: do not change direct quotations." Editor2020 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Non western/Islamic cultures
Are there not oaths in non-western/non-Islamic cultures as well? This article seems to be too Eurocentric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:4000:A875:15E1:1196:EFBC:D018 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is a worthless, half-ass, shitty article
The Christian part of this is entirely about people who do not swear oaths, which should in reality take up about 0.1% of the section. Where is the information about how Christian oath-taking developed from Roman times, the difference between Catholic and Protestant oath-taking, or the difference between oath-taking in civil court and in ecclesiastical court? Did some zealot delete all this, or did everyone assume that the modern American USA USA USA way of swearing oaths is so “obvious” and “not needing explanation” (no, wrong) that no historical or international perspective was thought necessary? Goddammit (in case you wanted an actual oath). 24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavian tradition
Hi, I think perhaps the "germanic tradition" section needs some more information than unsourced fantasies by random "The Vikings"-fans ... The germanic legal system was not "evidence-driven", it mainly consisted of claims and counter-claims, oaths whose reliability were bolstered by the character wintnesses for the swearer - a good reason to have a lot of friends. The tradition goes back to at least viking times, and is, in fact, continued to this very day. I'm not a native EN speaker (as you will see from the on-the-spot translations below), and will not try to formulate any passage on this, but I have gathered a motley clutch of sources for anyone willing to wring a line or two out of them. Here goes:

Det norske folks historie, P.A. Much, Christiania 1855, p. 1005, 1006:


 * "... Retsbeviserne bestode i virkelige Vidner, eller i Parters Ed, eller Gudsdomme. Parts-Eden var i de fleste Tilfælde ej indrettet som den nu brugelige, men efter den for den hele germaniske Folkestamme fælles vel bekjendte Maade, at den sværgende opstillede et et vist Antal Mededsmænd (conjuratores, consacramentales), der aflagde Ed paa, at de kjendte ham som en Mand, hvis Udsagn man havde al Grund til at ansee paalideligt. Det kom nu an paa, om det fuldstændige Antal Mededsmænd kunde erholdes, eller om deres Med-Ed ansaaes tilfredsstillende. Fornemmelig havde, som man let kan forstaa, disse sammensatte Eder deres Plads ved Forbrydelser, hvorfor en Part sigtedes. Mededsmændenes Antal rettede sig efter Sagens Vigtighed. Kun i de ubetydeligste Sager nøjedes man med Partens Ed alene, den saakaldte Eensed. Efter som den steg i Betydning, eller den Gjenstand, hvorom der tvistedes, i Pengeværdi, eller Forbrydelsen var stor til, fordredes to Mededsmænd, hvorved den sagsøgte svor selv tredie, eller Lyritar-Ed; fem Mededsmænd, hvorved han svor selv sjette eller Settared, og elleve Mededsmænd, hvorved han svor selv tolvte eller Tylftared. Saaledes f. Ex. fordredes Settar-Ed og Tylftar-Ed ved de fleste store Forbrydelser, hiin ved større Tyveri, Ildspaasættelse, Ukvemsord o. s. v. og overhoved ved Misgjerninger, hvorfor en Bod af 3 Mk. Sølv eller mere var fastsat; denne for Lands— og Højforræderi, Snigmord, Trygdbrud og Ubodemaal. Undertiden, men sjelden, og kun i Pengesager, omtales to Mands Ed; endnu sjeldnere syv Mands Ed eller Grimu-Ed. Een, saa lod Regelen, skal negte for een Øre (een Øres Værd), to for tvende Ører, tre for trende, og fremdeles. Lyritar-Ed, om end Beløbet er større. Denne synes at have været, den højeste Ed, der fordredes i Pengesager; og den aflagdes i saadanne ikke til Thinge, men for en deels af Sagsøgeren, deels af den sagsøgte efter visse Regler sammensat saakaldet Dom, bestaaende af 12 Mænd, der afgjorde, hvor vidt der var Anledning til at fordre Partsed, og hvor stor denne skulde være.


 * "... legal proof consisted of real witnesses, or in the parties' oath, or ordeals. The party oath was, in most cases, not arranged as is now common, but according to the well-known manner of the all Germanic peoples, that the swearer presented a certain number of men to swear a co-oath (conjuratores, consacramentales) who swore that they knew him as a man whose statementa one had every reason to consider reliable. Now it could depend on whether the full number of associates could be obtained, or their co-oath is considered satisfactory. These compound oaths, as one can easily understand, had their main place in crimes where a single party was charged. The number of conjuratores depended on the importance of the case. Only in the most insignificant cases one settled for the single party's oath by itself, the so-called "one's oath". The more important the case, or the higher the monetary value of any disputed item, or the gravity of a crime, two conjuratores were required, where the defendant swore self-third, or Lyritar-oath; five conjuratores, where he swore self-sixth or settar-oath, and eleven companions, where he swore self-twelfth or tylftar-oath. Hence settar-oath or tylftar-oath were required for most major crimes, the former for major theft, arson, calumny, and so on, and in general for misdeeds for which a fine of three marks of silver or more was to be paid; the latter for national treason and high treason, assassination, breaking the peace, and ubotamaal (crimes which cannot be paid off by fines or cases where fines were not paid as judged). Sometimes, but rarely, and only in pecuniary cases, a "two man oath" is mentioned; even less often "seven man oath" or "grimu-oath". One, so said the rule, should deny one eyri (worth one eyri), two for twin eyrir, three for thrice, and so forth. Lyritar-oath, should the amount be greater. This one seems to have been the highest oath that was required in pecuniary cases; and in such cases it was not sworn at thing, but in part by the suitor, in part by the defendant according to a so-called "dóm", composed according to certain rules, consisting of 12 men who determined whether there was occasion to demand a party oath and how many men who should swear it."

Magnus Lagabøtes Landslov, § 27,1 :
 * "... Men om han sier han er uskyldig, da må han få tolv menn til å sverge på at han er uskyldig."
 * "... But if he says that he is guiltless, then he must get twelve men to swear that he is guiltless."

Kjersti Selberg Eldre norske rettskilder ("Ancient Norwegian Legal Sources") UiO Universitetsbiblioteket Juridisk bibliotek Oslo 2013 ISSN 1893-9686 (online) ISBN 978-82-8037-030-3 (online) Editor: Randi Halveg Iversby


 * "En egen kategori vitner var mededsmenn.

Så lenge skyld ikke var bevist, kunne den anklagede si seg fri ved nektingsed. Mededsmenn var granner som gikk god for den anklagede. Dersom disse sverget falsk, var straffen streng. Nektingseden var regulert i Landsloven og ble tross motstand benyttet helt frem til Kong Christian Vs Norske lov av 1687."


 * "A separate category consisted of men who swore a co-oath (conjuratores).

As long as guilt was not proven, the accused could free himself by an oath of denial. Conjuratores were neighbors which guaranteed for the accused. If any of them swore falsely, the punishment was severe. The oath of denial was regulated by the Landslov ("Law of the realm"), and despite opposition, it was used until king Christian V's Laws of Norway of 1687." GUNNERIA 81, 2017 Frostatinget i et historisk lys ("The Frosta Thing in a historical light") Ed. Ole Risbøl (Gunneria is a periodical published by the NTNU University Museum at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. ) https://www.ntnu.no/documents/10476/66990/Gunneria81.pdf, p. 13:
 * "I lagrettesaker den dag i dag, skal lagrettemedlemmer avlegge ed om at de vil dømme slik de vet sannest og rettest å være, og etter loven og bevisene i saken."
 * "In cases before the Lagrett (Court of appeal), to this very day court members shall swear an oath to render verdict according to what they find most true and most just, and according to the law and the evidence of the case."

T 88.91.200.88 (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Text needs adding my opinion to 2 sub-headings within the article
In my opinion, text needs adding to 2 sub-headings in the article as they look empty with just a hyperlink underneath them. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)