Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should the courts be still using the bible?

2»

Comments

  • #52
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I mean I'd take the non-Bible one. I don't plan on being in court though :)


  • #53
    Mal-Adjusted
    Registered Users Posts: 3,598 ✭✭✭Mal-Adjusted


    TeddyTedson wrote: »
    You have a point.
    It's a load of ****e and they should just use lie detectors.
    Deus Ex Machina wrote: »
    Lie detectors don't exist.

    The actual name of the machine is called a polygraph. It works by recording a number of physical responses on a person when they're asked a series of questions. things like heart-rate, perspiration and such that CAN be indicators of lying.

    It's very inaccurate and has a hit ratio of just above 50% (so only slightly more accurate than flipping a coin) and because of this (and it's ridiculous nick-name) people tend to swear by it and it leads to a lot of false positives.


  • #54
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    philologos wrote: »
    I mean I'd take the non-Bible one.

    Oh I know man. I got your meaning. I just think the idea of you standing up and saying "Sorry Judge, I can't swear on the Bible, it's against my religious beliefs" and then adding "I'm a Christian, you see" might be somewhat confusing to some poor Judge.


  • #55
    Desire2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 155 ✭✭Desire2


    strobe wrote: »
    do you not think the poor bastards are confused enough? :pac:

    You really should not say that about Judges strobe,i mean you really should'nt!:eek:


    Kidding aside as others have said a lot of them and many Jurors would hold it against a defendant (even if they would say they would not when they were selected)

    The system really was set up to protect the rich and some Garda get promoted on the 'easy' offenders they have managed to add to their arrest and conviction list.


  • #56
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    There is also the issue where an atheist who may be the accused or witness for the accused in a case who chooses not to swear on a bible suddenly becomes a disreputable character in the eyes of a jury who more often than not are pillars of the local community (Church goers). This prejudices the case.
    No i dont have a link to such but I have a gut feeling that this may well happen.

    Jury's have to swear as well an I don't think I have ever seen a jury sworn with out at least one asking to affirm. So I don't really think its an issue.


  • #57
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    strobe wrote: »
    Oh I know man. I got your meaning. I just think the idea of you standing up and saying "Sorry Judge, I can't swear on the Bible, it's against my religious beliefs" and then adding "I'm a Christian, you see" might be somewhat confusing to some poor Judge.

    I think all judges understand that the usual reason to affirm is by Christians who have a issue with swearing on the bible for religious reasons. Affirming has been around since the late 1800's for that very reason. I have never seen a judge so much as bat an eyelid as long as the person takes an oath. On an average day I would guess at least 1 in 10 affirm.


Advertisement