To swear by Almighty God is the traditional way of making a solemn oath in a courtroom, but it has recently also been joined by a non-religious alternative.
Now, scientists have found that defendants in court may stand a better chance of avoiding jail if they make the Biblical vow, and avoid the non-religious route.
A study shows that overall there is no difference in how guilty a person is deemed to be by members of the public depending on which oath they opt for at the start of their trial.
A team of UK scientists asked almost 2,000 participants to swear a vow that they would try a virtual defendant in good faith. These people then saw a mock trial of defendants and were asked to give their verdict.
For each defendant the individuals were aware of if a religious oath was taken or if the person opted for a secular option.
Impact of religious persuasion of juror
Data show that the religious persuasion of the juror had no impact on likelihood of whether defendants will be found guilty. However, jurors who took a religious oath seemingly did look down on defendants who chose not to do the same.
“In countries like the UK and Ireland, if you don’t want to swear “by God”, you can take a secular declaration that makes no mention of God,” Prof Ryan McKay, study lead author from Royal Holloway, University of London, told The Telegraph.
“We find that jurors who themselves swear by God discriminate against defendants who take the secular declaration, being more likely to find them guilty.
“The bias we found is not bias by religious jurors per se, but by jurors who choose the religious oath when being sworn in (although they are of course more likely to be religious than jurors who don’t choose the religious oath).”
Data in the study reveal that jurors who decided to swear by an omnipotent deity found defendants guilty 60 per cent of the time if they took the non-religious affirmation. This dropped to 49 per cent if they swore a religious oath.
“You could say you were 11 per cent more likely to be found guilty by these jurors if you made the secular declaration (compared to if you made the religious declaration),” Prof McKay said.
Tradition and authoritarianism
The researchers say it is not necessarily religion that drives the discrimination, but authoritarianism.
“Authoritarian jurors are more likely to take the oath than the affirmation, and are more likely to find the defendant guilty,” Prof McKay said.
“Authoritarians care more about tradition, and high-authoritarian jurors may consider the oath to be the correct choice because it is the traditional choice.
“As a result, they may view with suspicion those who break with this tradition by choosing to affirm.”
The study is published in The British Journal of Psychology.
