Oath in United States

Oath Definition

An outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. Tyler, Oaths, 15. The term has been variously defined : As, “a solemn invocation of the vengeance of the Deity upon the witness if he do not declare the whole truth, so far as he knows it.” 1 Starkie, Ev. 22. . Or, “a religious asseveration by which a person renounces the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of Heaven if he do not speak the truth.” 2 Leach, C. C. 482. Or, as “a religious act by vyhich the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or, in other words, to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it.” 10 Toulliei;, Dr. Civ. notes 343-348; Puffendorff, bk. 4, c. 2, § 4. The essential idea of an oath would seem to be, however, that of a recognition of God’s authority by the party taking it,- and an undertaking to accomplish the transaction to which it refers as required by His laws. In its broadest sense, the term is used to include all forms of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform the act faithfully and truly. In a more restricted sense, it excludes all those forms of attestation or promise which are not accompanied by an imprecation. Assertory Oaths. Those required by law other than in judicial proceedings, and upon induction to office, such, for example, as custom-house oaths. Promissory Oaths. Oaths taken by authority of law, by which the party declares that he will fulfill certain duties therein mentioned; as, the oath which an alien takes, on becoming naturalized, that he will support the constitution of the United States; the oath which a judge takes that he will perform the duties of his office. The breach of this does not involve the party in the legal crime or punishment of perjury. 3 Zab. (N. J.) 49. Extrajudicial Oaths. Those taken without authority of l&vt. Though binding in foro conscientiae, they do not, when false, render the party liable to punishment for perjury. Judicial Oaths. Those administered in judicial proceedings.

Oath in Foreign Legal Encyclopedias

Back to Top

For starting research in the law of a foreign country:

Browse the American Encyclopedia of Law for Oath

Scan Oath in the appropriate area of law:

Back to Top

Explore other Reference Works

Back to Top

Legal Issue for Attorneys

An outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. Tyler, Oaths, 15. The term has been variously defined : As, “a solemn invocation of the vengeance of the Deity upon the witness if he do not declare the whole truth, so far as he knows it.” 1 Starkie, Ev. 22. . Or, “a religious asseveration by which a person renounces the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of Heaven if he do not speak the truth.” 2 Leach, C. C. 482. Or, as “a religious act by vyhich the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or, in other words, to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it.” 10 Toulliei;, Dr. Civ. notes 343-348; Puffendorff, bk. 4, c. 2, § 4. The essential idea of an oath would seem to be, however, that of a recognition of God’s authority by the party taking it,- and an undertaking to accomplish the transaction to which it refers as required by His laws. In its broadest sense, the term is used to include all forms of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform the act faithfully and truly. In a more restricted sense, it excludes all those forms of attestation or promise which are not accompanied by an imprecation. Assertory Oaths. Those required by law other than in judicial proceedings, and upon induction to office, such, for example, as custom-house oaths. Promissory Oaths. Oaths taken by authority of law, by which the party declares that he will fulfill certain duties therein mentioned; as, the oath which an alien takes, on becoming naturalized, that he will support the constitution of the United States; the oath which a judge takes that he will perform the duties of his office. The breach of this does not involve the party in the legal crime or punishment of perjury. 3 Zab. (N. J.) 49. Extrajudicial Oaths. Those taken without authority of l&vt. Though binding in foro conscientiae, they do not, when false, render the party liable to punishment for perjury. Judicial Oaths. Those administered in judicial proceedings.

The Index is a collection of entries to allow users to locate information in the Lawi Projects. After write down relevant words and phrases that you need, begin looking up the words and phrases using the index until you have located an applicable subject to review.

Indexes of All Encyclopedias:
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | Z

Back to TopBack to Top

This definition of Oath is based on The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary. This entry needs to be proofread.

Oath in 1899 (United States)

The following information about Oath is from the Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States by the Best American and European Writers.

OATH. Oaths have been in use in all countries of which we have any exact information, and it is probable that there is no nation which has any clear notion of a Supreme Being, or of superior beings, that does not make use of oaths on certain solemn occasions. An oath may be described generally as an appeal or address to a superior being, by which the person making it engages to declare the truth on the occasion on which he takes the oath, or by which he promises to do something hereafter. The person who imposes or receives the oath, imposes or receives it on the supposition that the person making it apprehends some evil consequences to himself from the superior being, if he should violate the oath. The person taking the oath may or may not fear such consequences, but the value of the oath in the eyes of him who receives or imposes it consists in the opinion which he has of its influence over the person who takes it. An oath may be taken voluntarily, or it may be imposed on a person under certain circumstances by a political superior; or it may be the only condition on which the assertion or declaration of a person shall be admitted as evidence of any fact.

-The form of taking the oath has varied greatly in different countries. Among the Greeks a person sometimes placed his hand on the altar of the deity by whom he swore; but the forms of oaths were almost as various as the occasions. Oaths were often used in judicial proceedings among the Greeks. The Dicastæ, who were judges and jurymen, gave their verdict upon oath. The Heliastic oath is stated at length in the speech of Demosthenes against Timocrates (c. 36). It does not appear that the oath was always imposed on witnesses in judicial proceedings; and yet it appears that sometimes witnesses gave their evidence on oath: perhaps the oath on the part of witnesses was generally voluntary. (Demosth., c. 16;, c. 10; and Meier a
nd Schömann, Att. Process., p. 675.)

-In the Roman jurisprudence an oath was required in some cases from the plaintiff, or the defendant, or both. Thus the oath of calumny was required from the plaintiff, which was a solemn declaration that he did not prosecute his suit for any fraudulent or malicious purpose. The offense of false swearing was perjurium, perjury; but it was considered a less offense in a party to a suit when the oath was imposed by a judex than when it was voluntary. It does not appear that in civil proceedings witnesses were necessarily examined on oath; but witnesses appear to have been examined on oath in the judicia publica, which were criminal proceedings. The title in the Digest, “De Testibus” (22, tit. 5), makes no mention of the oath, though it speaks of punishment being inflicted on witnesses who bore false testimony.

-The law in America and England, as a rule, requires evidence or testimony for judicial purposes to be given on oath. A Jew, a Mohammedan and a Hindoo may be sworn as witnesses, but they must severally take the oath in that form which is sanctioned by the usage of their country or nation, and which they severally consider to be binding. The offense of declaring what is false when a witness is examined upon oath, constitutes perjury.

More about Oath in the Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States

-Declarations made by a person under the apprehension of immediate death are generally admitted as evidence in judicial proceedings, when properly verified; for it is considered that the circumstances in which the person is placed at the time of making the declaration furnish as strong motives for veracity as the obligation of an oath. Quakers also, in all [2] civil cases, were allowed by the statute 7 8 8 Wm. III., c. 34, to give their evidence on affirmation; and now the affirmation of Quakers and Moravians is admissible in all judicial proceedings, both civil and criminal.

-As oaths may be either voluntary or may be imposed by a political superior, so they may be imposed either on extrajudicial or on judicial occasions. Oaths which are imposed on occasion of judicial proceedings are the most frequent, and the occasions are the most important to the interests of society. The principle on which an oath is administered on judicial occasions is this it is supposed that an additional security is thereby acquired for the veracity of him who takes the oath. Bentham, in his “Rationale of Evidence,” on the contrary, affirms that, “whether principle or experience be regarded, the oath will be found, in the hands of justice, an altogether useless instrument; in the hands of injustice, a deplorably serviceable one,” “that it is inefficacious to all good purposes,” and “that it is by no means inefficacious to bad ones.”

-The three great sanctions or securities for veracity in a witness, or, to speak perhaps more correctly, the three great sanctions against mendacity in a witness, are, the punishment legally imposed on a person who is convicted of false swearing, the punishment inflicted by public opinion or the positive morality of society, and the fear of punishment from the Deity, in this world or the next, or in both. The common opinion is, that all the three sanctions operate on a witness, though they operate on different witnesses in very different degrees. A man who does not believe that the Deity will punish false swearing can only be under the influence of the first two sanctions; and if his character is such that it can not be made worse than it is, he may be under the influence of the first sanction only. Bentham affirms that the third sanction only appears to exercise an influence in any case, because it acts in conjunction with “the two real and efficient sanctions,” “the political sanction and the moral or popular sanction;” and that if it is stripped of those accompaniments, its impotence will appear immediately.

-Bentham’s chief argument is as follows. “that the supposition of the efficiency of an oath is absurd in principle. It ascribes to man a power over his Maker. It supposes the Almighty to stand engaged, no matter how, but absolutely engaged, to inflict on every individual by whom the ceremony, after having been performed, has been profaned, a punishment (no matter what) which, but for the ceremony and the profanation, he would not have inflicted. It supposes him thus prepared to inflict, at command, and at all times, a punishment, which, being at all times the same, at no time bears any proportion to the offense.” Again: “either the ceremony causes punishment to be inflicted by the Deity in cases where otherwise it would not have been inflicted; or it does not. In the former case the same sort of authority is exercised by man over the Deity, as that which, in English law, is exercised over the judge by the legislator, or over the sheriff by the judge. In the latter case the ceremony is a mere form without any useful effect whatever.”

More information about Oath

More about Oath in the Cyclopaedia

-There is some difficulty in stating accurately how far oaths were required from witnesses in Roman procedure under the republic and the earlier emperors. In addition to what has been stated, the reader may refer to Cicero, Pro Q. Rose. Comœd., c. 15, etc.; and Noodt, Op. Omn., II., 479, “De Testibus.” By a constitution of Constantine, all witnesses were required to give their testimony on oath; and this was again declared by a constitution of Justinian. (Cod. 4, tit. 20, s. 9, 16, 19.)

-Many persons conscientiously object to the taking of an oath on religious grounds, and particularly with reference to the prohibition in Matthew v., 33. On the subject of oaths in general the reader may consult Grotius, De Jure, B. 8 P., lib. II., c. 13; Paley’s Moral Philosophy; Tyler’s Origin and History of Oaths; the Law Magazine, vol. XII.; and the work of Bentham already referred to.1__.

More

Author of this text: Bohn

Concept of Oath in Judicial Assistance

In this context, a definition of Oath may be as follows: Broadly, any form of attestation by which persons signify that they are bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. (See 22 CFR 92.18 (a)). With respect to testimony and statements in connection with litigation, it is an affirmation of the truth of a statement that renders one punishable for perjury if one willfully makes untrue statements.