Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 April 19

= April 19 =

Witness not permitted to give sworn testimony
I'm reading a novel translated from Swedish and set there. The narrator is summoned to appear as a witness in a trial in which his daughter is charged with murder, but because of his close personal connection with her he is not permitted to take the oath. He still must answer the questions put to him, though.

Is this procedure common? If it was revealed that some answer he gave was untruthful, would that be grounds for perjury, or just for contempt of court? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * While not knowing anything specific about Swedish criminal procedure, I have to say that this does not make sense to me. Dramatic licence? --Lambiam 08:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IANAL but it makes sense to me. Having a close personal connection, their testimony could be biased. It would be more objective if they simply answered specific questions. Shantavira|feed me 08:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Anybody's testimony can be biased for a variety of reasons. The oath does not mean much more than a promise to present things as truthfully as one can. --Lambiam 21:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This says:
 * In Sweden we have a general obligation to give evidence. This means that anyone with significant knowledge relating to an investigation is obliged to testify in court if the prosecutor or the defendant or the defence counsel deem it necessary. So, as a private individual you are not at liberty to decide whether or not you wish to give evidence. Exceptions are only granted to those who, for example, are closely related to the suspect.


 * But choosing whether or not you wish to testify is a different matter from giving unsworn testimony. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There is an article on spousal privilege. It does not contain any data on Scandinavian proceedings but there may be useful references to Anglo-Saxon usage.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (pdf), chapter 36, section 13: "Nor may in criminal cases an oath be taken by a person related to the defendant." I must admit, I don't understand why being related to someone relieves them of the obligation to take an oath. --Viennese Waltz 09:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as relieving them, rather as disqualifying them. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Read in combination with section 11, I interpret this as implying that persons related to the defendant cannot give testimony in criminal cases. --Lambiam 21:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whereas, in my novel - which I acknowledge may not stick closely to actual Swedish court procedure - he is compelled to give evidence, but not permitted to take the oath. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's right. Section 3 says that relatives of the defendant are not obliged to testify, not that they are disqualified from doing so. --Viennese Waltz 06:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not disqualified in civil cases, but then they are (like all witnesses giving testimony) required to take an oath. They are not obliged to take an oath, but then they can also not testify in the case. --Lambiam 09:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Under the old legal rules of "coverture", in many cases a husband and wife were not allowed to testify for or against each other (the person who accused Jane Austen's aunt Jane Leigh-Perrot of shoplifting seems to have very carefully taken this into account when making the accusation). But I doubt that it has much to do with the Swedish thing... AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

How reliable are these sources?
, Are both these sources useful for the Alan Singh article? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask at WP:RSN instead; that's a more appropriate forum for analyzing the reliability of sources. -- Jayron 32 11:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What is St Alphege carrying?
Today is the feast of Ælfheah (or Alphege) of Canterbury. Looking for an image to add to his article, I found this statue of him at Salisbury Cathedral, but what is he carrying in his robe? Some sort of hexagonal boxes? Any ideas? Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The rocks the drunken Danes threw at him? This thesis discusses some of the iconography associated with him in various stained glass window depictions, based on his various miracles/his life story. It mentions a depiction of him with rocks and bones piled at his feet to represent his manner of death. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (e/c) According to this book, "In portraitures he is frequently depicted with his chasuble full of stones, in allusion to the first part of his martyrdom", i.e. he was stoned by Danes before being finished off with an axe blow. --Antiquary (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's probably the stones that were used to kill him. But it might be hot cross buns, which would be tastier. Girth Summit  (blether)  22:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Or rock cakes. DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. Stones it is. They look a bit too regular, but perhaps those Vikings were choosey about their missiles. Apparently, they also threw a cow's head at him, but that would look silly. Alansplodge (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Image and ref now added to article. Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)