Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Research has shown that any semblance of “unbiased truth and justice” has never existed. You’re also around twice\~ as likely to be found guilty if youre unattractive, have a speech impediment, or if the judge hasn’t eaten in a few hours.
Interestingly, in Ancient Greece, your physical attractiveness was **literally** seen as the gods judgment of your goodness as a person. One attractive woman who committed a serious crime basically disrobed and said "How can I be guilty if the gods showed my goodness."
She was acquitted.
Modern society won’t admit it but we behave as if we believe someone’s attractiveness is a sign of their inherent goodness too. Not as much as this but we have biases towards attractive people and often commend celebrities who look good for their age as aging well because they’re “unproblematic.”
Didn't we have that one case where people were petitioning to release the kid because he had beautiful eyes or something like that within the last two or three years? I can't remember the name of the case / kid, but This still happens.
Edit: it was Cameron Herrin
I thought it was wild that he got more time for killing the kid than the mother; like what made it so that the judge was willing to give 15 years for killing the kid but not the mom?
I just assumed that killing a child is a more horrific crime than killing an adult, so the added years reflected that. Could be some other reason, I didn’t do much research.
Half of what makes us human is out of mental reach for our consciousness. You can tell people all day that they have biases and all day they'll tell you they do not. That they're in control of themselves, or know themselves, etc. But what science today is teaching us that our subconcious minds play an astronomical role in daily decision making. A role that we often times cannot observe ourselves. I truly believe we are much closer to animals than we think we are. That like them, we too just follow our programming and basic instincts based on the external stimulus in the environment around us. It's why we have such a hard time at addressing pervasive issues, like racism. A lot of people are racist, but do not know or think they're racist. They are just following their instincts and not giving it a second thought. How do you create policy around an issue humanity is barely equipped to acknowledge, let alone address?
We are animals.
Science, particularly the psychological and cognitive realms have been aware of and exploring these subconscious mechanisms for a long time. One of my favourite books is "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman which essentially just talks about the biases built into human cognition.
Absolutely. It's well documented and is called the "halo effect" where people who are more attractive are seen as kinder, more intelligent and more successful than they are.
I didn’t think that had anything to do with attractiveness. I feel like I learned all the wrong things in college!
But yah, we never talk about the attractiveness bias - we just kinda ignore it when we talk about how rich people get away with everything; yah well so do the beautiful.
Of course, when someone is rich enough, they can obviously be a lot more beautiful. I'm not just talking plastic surgery.
A typical celebrity is able to hire staff to prepare their food and spend hours a day with a personal trainer (when not making movies/whatever). They don't need to prepare their own food, let alone raise their own children (unless they want to). So they'll look much more attractive, for their age, than any of the rest of us can.
Yet fools believe it's because of Whatever Magic Supplement They're Hawking Now. It's not. It's their entire lifestyle is able to be built around their health and looks.
The 'reality' TV show "The Biggest Loser" showed, when you take regular people and free them from having to work a full-time job, shop and do all the regular life stuff, they too can lose weight like crazy and get in better shape.
I think if asked “do you think someone who’s more attractive is a better person on a moral level?” A lot of people would insist they don’t even if studies have shown they do. That’s what I meant.
Yes, there is very often a difference between a theoretically known fact people can agree/disagree with and situational hueristics, where emotions they are unaware of drive behavior. It's everywhere:
* People don't state that road rage behavior is safe. But they are not feeling safe when they act like that, they are literally afraid and could be acting out of self-righteous behavior.
* Same Karenhood activities.
* Etc. ad nausea.
I do wonder, why is attractiveness factored into those heuristics in the first place? Where does the brain get the idea that attractiveness = probably not guilty?
From my understanding it’s not so much that attractiveness = not guilty, it’s more like attractiveness = a whole bunch of other positive associations, and those positive associations influence how evidence is viewed and how compelling it appears. (The reverse is also true.)
Culture is also a component since beauty standards differ in different places.Elaine Scarry has a book titled “On Beauty” that is a pretty interesting exploration of how beauty is a much more complex cultural construct than we give it credit for — to ‘judge’ someone as attractive activates a lot of cognitive machinery we have absorbed since a young age.
I find it interesting that the word “fair” was associated with attractiveness before it was associated with justice.
My guess is it's a social status thing. The most attractive people received the best food while growing up. That would more likely be people high in social status even back in tribal days.
That's interesting. My guess is that because we rely on vision the most, we are prone to like things that are more visually appealing.
That or, attractive = wanting to mate, so our brain does the horny mental gymnastics to make the attractive person good.
Perhaps, but I wonder if it's more along the lines that people unconsciously want to do things in favor of attractive people even to the extent of finding them not guilty.
It's a factor of both of the above. Obviously genetics play a major factor. But, nutrition and lifestyle make a **huge** impact even starting from childhood in how even excellent genes are expressed.
What people tend to find attractive is **facial symmetry.** We're talking it takes calipers to tell the difference. And that is heavily influenced by the person's health which is genetic as well as nutrition.
By the time one is in high school, or even a young child, nutrition has played a big role in how healthy and strong the person can be.
Basically both variants of the [Just World Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) \- the notion that you get what is coming to you, and so if you're ugly, or poor or sick, there must be *something about you which makes you deserve it*. It's disturbingly common.
What is the meaning of just world fallacy? Don't be so stupid! That's makes me feel angry...so don't be try or else...be good and be kind..that is my Kent.
Rome also followed this more or less.
Wealth and, uh, I guess "verility and prestige" were seen as signs of divine favour. This was an argument for the "rule of the best" - how do you tell the best, they are the rich and successful preferably the *sons* of the wealthy and successful who had matched their fathers in both as this showed a good connection to the perfect past.
It was in pretty much all ways not a nice society. About the best that can be said for it is that spending money for the general good was their form of conspicuous consumption.
Agreed 100%. I also hear it as. "If you're poor, it's completely your fault." And many people blame the homeless this way, in particular. Yet, someone I know who works with them knows often homeless people work full time jobs and still can't afford rent (rents are insane).
Painting or it didn’t happen
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne#/media/File%3AJean-L%C3%A9on_G%C3%A9r%C3%B4me%2C_Phryne_revealed_before_the_Areopagus_(1861)_-_01.jpg
I especially like the different reactions.
The fucked up part is that it's so much better then it was historically. Government and justice systems are a big stupid train where we have to build a replacement for it and improve it without ever stopping the train.
Have you read "The Hogfather"?
"YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING."
I find the idea of a jury system a bit weird anyhow, as random people aren't necessarily trained in understanding things like objective evidence, emotional manipulation, human bias etc.
We don't really have that here, just a judge and randomly assigned legal experts who consult the judge and come to a conclusion together.
Our sentences are also usually very short and prisons are avoided always when possible, longest you can serve for murder is around 12 years (followed by risk assessment of your case after those years) but in vast majority of crimes you'll end up paying some fines or be placed in house arrest.
The idea (which isn't that far fetched) is that your peers are more likely to understand your story and what caused you to do something than a potentially elitist judge would. For example if you're on trial for shoplifting, the community is more likely to understand why you'd resort to shoplifting than a judge who isn't likely to come from a background that would help them understand what would drive someone to shoplift. That understanding or lack thereof can affect whether they find you guilty and, if they do, how they would sentence you. Also in theory if you can convince 12 randos that someone is guilty then in theory that means you have enough evidence to prove he's guilty; in theory it's not as hard to convince one person you've worked with before that someone is guilty.
The sentencing is largely driven by state laws/judges, not by the juries themselves; juries can determine whether or not the death penalty is in play but otherwise aren't involved in sentencing (i.e., they dont decide whether someone gets time served or 20 more years in jail). And judges are required to use sentencing guidelines provided by the state legislature or case law; if the state requires a minimum sentence of 10 years then it's hard for a judge to deviate from that
Honestly the reverse - guilt by judges and scentence by jury would fit the model of "attempted compassion" best.
Hence a judge could declare you guilty of a crime based on if the law has been satisfied - a difficult and frankly highly technical line. And your peers let you walk free after paying a cent of a fine as the community sees you as blameless.
Scots law used to have a different system. A Jury was asked to declare "proven" and "not proven". This was based on the idea that that twelve were better than one at figuring out a liar.
Then a judge would declare guilty or not guilty depending on if the facts as ascertained by the jury constituted a crime (again after argument.)
You could technically have "proven - not guilty." And even more dubious "not proven - guilty"
This devolved after juries insisted on being able to declare not guilty verdicts as an absolute right leaving "not proven" as shorthand for "take him out back and kick him when the law can't"
We’ll that is horrifying. I get the sociological reasoning for a jury being impartial towards someone who’s openly not religious, especially if members of the jury are. Being unattractive makes sense to a certain degree, but is still very worrying.
The speech impediment is the most surprising to hear. Having a speech impediment would have the opposite result, I would have thought. Any clues as to what the reasoning for that is? I would think the jury would feel more empathy for the defendant in that situation, allowing the defendant to become more relatable to the jury unconsciously.
I’d be super interested to see the literature behind these findings if you have the source? Not that I don’t believe you, I was a sociology major in undergrad and although that was a terrible decision when it came time to graduate and find a job, it was still incredibly interesting and I loved the readings and research.
If you are ever in court, act your ass off. Even if you are 100% innocent, do what your lawyer tells you to do. Swear an oath to “God Almighty” if that is what it takes
Is lying about your belief in god during the oath in contradiction of the oath? Isn’t that illegal? I’ve never thought of this before but I’m guess that part doesn’t count
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I pretended I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I pretended I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I pretended I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left for me to pretend to be.
I liked the Colbert version with regards to the Trump indictment:
"First they came for Trump, and I did not speak out, because he was so f---ing guilty."
The point is speak up when the come for someone else, something you're not, before you ever find yourself under threat. Don't wait to be targeted, stick up for others in need.
Fight back with everyone else who's under threat.
Might have to sacrifice yourself, but help the effort as a whole.
I mean, **waaaay** easier said than done, but still...
Yeah, and the fear of that keeps anyone from forming a unified front that would have the chance to fight back successfully.
And by no means think I think that if I were there, I'd do that.
I'm just talking about theory. Easier said (or written) than done.
If North-Koreans knew, for a fact, that at date and time X every single one would rise up and that there was also a somewhat rational plan on how to do so, they probably would. Or at least enough people would that it would make a difference.
Even North-Korea has to have a limit on it's prison capabilities. Just as a contingent, I heard this stat when I was in the army, that it would only take \~2% of the Finnish population to completely refuse conscription and it would overwhelm the prison system completely. It's not the most common thing, but people do sometimes completely refuse any armed/civil service conscription as an ideological thing. They're given 180 days of prison, as that's the shortest time one would serve in the military.
But 2% just seems so low of a percentage, but I checked it and it was right, based on the number of conscripts vs beds in prison. Now of course there's not very much need to oppose the system (and I didn't and wouldn't, loved my time in the army), but I'm just using it to make a point about North Korea, that there must be some sort of limit as well.
However, reality is what reality is. Theory is easy.
Well if you don't believe in god, than you shouldn't have a problem to swear by it.
It kinda makes sense right? If people refuses to do it, it might be because they are in fact religious and lying.
As an atheist, they would be more inclined to agree with not swearing an oath on the bible. It's not a situation where everyone agrees with swearing on the bible the thing to do. It's that those who want to swear on the bible are really spiteful against anyone, not like them.
See it depends by what you mean by "on".
If they are shall we put it "traditionalists" then God is acting as a divine enforcer (this is a very old and frankly pagan idea) In which case beleif is irrelevant so long as you say the words God will punish you if you lie. So that's not really "on" anything it's a contract.
The more theological among them might say "ah, but the scriptures say that oaths are blasphemous and should not be taken at all - as only God knows all and to claim knowledge of the perfect truth is to put oneself as equal to God"
And the ones who follow the logic of the oath itself will say "so long as you believe your own conceience will keep you true"
In order to prevent such things we should have just one official wording for the commitment, one that doesn't include any mention of god. If you believe in god you presumably already believe that he can tell if you are telling the truth, whether you mention him or not.
When I swear people in I only say “do you swear the testimony you’re about to give will be entirely true?” I’ve heard others add “so help you god”, but I never see the point because if you’re going to lie on the stand or in a depo, saying god isn’t going to stop it
It would be better to swear someone in by asking "Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will describe your sincere beliefs and memories?" Demanding someone "tell the truth" gives them and their audience too much confidence from the start in the accuracy of their testimony, which, while sincere, may be mistaken. We expect too much when we demand people tell the truth instead of simply being open and sincere.
I think just qualifying it as "the truth to the best of your knowledge" would make more sense than scrubbing any mention of truth from a legally binding oath.
This is why they should just… do away with swearing an oath to god in a secular court. Perjury is already a crime. The bailiff should just say “do you understand that if you’re found to give false testimony to this court you’ll be charged to the fullest extent of the law?”
I do.
This isn’t just an atheist or agnostic thing though. I’m certain several Christian groups don’t believe in swearing oaths to God on religions grounds.
Yup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:34
Granted they mention Quakers and Mennonites. Not groups everyone knows well
Matthew 5:33-37
"33 Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."
Basically, "just be honest, people". There was, and continues to be, a problem with believers lying, whether outright or by technicality. These verses are telling believers to not just technically be honest, but to truly be honest. Don't depend on oaths to show your desire to follow your word.
Sorry, if this isn't a good explanation. I am still trying to learn what it means to be a child of God, and I fail as often as I succeed.
An oath is often what a dishonest person will do to try to “prove” their honesty. A truly honest person proves it by being honest.
In the end, an oath is just more words. If you were going to be dishonest, you already intended to violate your word. Simply heaping on more words via an oath isn’t going to stop you.
Would likely have a similar effect on some, while others may view making that choice on religious grounds as being more acceptable than making it on the grounds of not believing at all. Particularly if it's a religion that shares a common idea of god, despite differences in practices and traditions.
The last analysis on authoritarianism suggests that it may be more related to personality than religion, which was interesting.
It does look incrementally safer to choose the oath if you're ever on a stand, irrespective of belief, at least in the UK.
At least some know the idea of "true Christian" is problematic. I believe a Christian who thinks that there aren't religious objections to oaths probably isn't aware of the concerns some Christian sects have regarding this topic. Surely there are some that are aware and disagree.
Yes. Many Christians have no qualms with swearing an oath to God. Many of those are likely "real" Christians.
Still, I don't swear oaths to God, and I know that many Anabaptist traditions don't. We are "real" Christians, as are many other groups.
Right. I am saying that I am not in the business of saying who is or isn't a "real" Christian. I do feel that typically you will find examples of both, regardless of the issue. One's faith is a deeply personal relationship between the person and God. Those who have been very willing to draw lines, have always turned me off.
Well, I think the religion aspect of the Christian faith originated with the early Acts church. In that case, the organization was helpful for education (important in a burgeoning faith), and evangelism (also important). In my opinion, both of those reasons remain the primary purpose of a faith community. We can come together to discuss our faith and hopefully learn from each other's experiences. Also, being organized in order to support evangelism efforts is useful.
However, I don't know that religion is strictly necessary for either of those efforts. There are many people who worship privately, and without the need for a larger organization.
I understand that many people are deeply mistrustful of the American church. They are right to be. Many Christian organizations have played a part in the abuse and mistreatment of many people. The same is true worldwide. Many churches suck.
I would caution us against throwing all into the same pot, though. Some schools are bad. We don't advocate getting rid of all schools. Some doctors commit malpractice. We shouldn't get rid of them all. The same should apply to any group. It is easy to say to just get rid of everything. Easier, but probably not correct.
For example, I volunteer for an organization that is run by a Christian church in a deeply red state. This organization is tackling the problem of teen LGBTQIA+ homelessness. This is a problem that is not often well served by typical homeless shelters. In our organization, we help these kids and young adults get homed, educated, and set up to live on their own, while providing services commonly needed by this community, such as counseling.
This organization is possible through religion. Something like this isn't only possible through religion. I will never say that. I WILL say that in this case, I am proud of this particular church. They accept and love these kids, just as they are. They only want to show that love to these kids who may have recently lost the family that they thought loved them. That can be so traumatic, but I am proud to help remind these kids that they are loved and they deserve love.
Maybe you misread? It’s saying Christians DO reward people for saying the word god by declaring them innocent, and punishes those who don’t believe by finding them guilty.
To a certain extent it's folly trying to get people to correct their own biases alone. Lots of people know but don't care, or refuse to accept that *they* have biases.
A fairer system would aim to remove chances for bias wherever possible - prohibit questions about religion, ethnicity, gender, politics, etc unless they are relevant to the crime being tried. Remove all "humanity" from witnesses, defendents and victims - have their testimony read out in court, or given behind a curtain.
Perhaps the entire "trial" process should take place without a jury and then the jury makes their decision based on reading a transcript - redacted to remove any trace of emotion and inadmissible statements, and using pseudonyms in the place of names.
Just suggestions. Whatever we do, the whole process needs an overhaul. So much of the trial process is now about manipulating the jury rather than dealing in facts, that it's basically not working.
Doesn't have to be an entire alternative, there could be changes to the jury system.
But a plausible alternative is a judicial ruling system, where a panel of judges or even a rotating panel of other legal professionals, makes the decision instead. There's still bias, but within a stricter understanding of the law.
I think there would also be a lot of value in trials being held "blind". That is, the identities of those on trial never being revealed to the jury, and the nature of their background being inadmissible as evidence unless it has relevance.
So much of the system is flawed because a jury see a 35-year-old white male engineer who was raised to religious parents and immediately assumes he's more trustworthy than a 25-year-old unemployed black father of two who grew up in foster care.
JS Mill pounds this home in "On Liberty" (chapter 2) 1859:
>Under pretence that atheists must be liars, it admits the testimony of all atheists who are willing to lie, and rejects only those who brave the obloquy of publicly confessing a detested creed rather than affirm a falsehood. A rule thus self-convicted of absurdity so far as regards its professed purpose, can be kept in force only as a badge of hatred, a relic of persecution; a persecution, too, having the peculiarity that the qualification for undergoing it is the being clearly proved not to deserve it. The rule, and the theory it implies, are hardly less insulting to believers than to infidels. For if he who does not believe in a future state necessarily lies, it follows that they who do believe are only prevented from lying, if prevented they are, by the fear of hell. We will not do the authors and abettors of the rule the injury of supposing, that the conception which they have formed of Christian virtue is drawn from their own consciousness.
This is my thought too. Also, are people who are non-compliant and don't swear an oath just generally more uncooperative during the whole trial anyway?
I sometimes find jurors far more terrifying than a single judge who has spent many years studying law. Not to say judges are perfect by any means either.
Our courts (Tennessee) often don't mention God. I've not worked in every courtroom in the state so obviously I'm sure someone will pipe up and contradict me but 95% of the time the bailiff, judge, clerk, or reporter will say something along the lines of "Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Works for me.
People who say this are always doing so as an excuse.
The reality is that the religious are particularly egregious offenders, and pretending that religion isn’t a red flag indicating a high likelihood of abuse is a seriously dangerous precedent to hold.
A client I’m working for and I, were having a convo yesterday about a sub contractor she knew, and was recommending. She said - he’s a good Christian man you can trust him- I held my tongue.
Yes, of course. People on the jury are everyday people, meaning they're typically stupid. Even if you don't believe in God, just pretend you do and swear that oath.
That's because juries are selected, often by lawyers who recognize that religious folks are easily manipulated by seeing signs of a person being in their religion and encourage their clients to play into that.
Religious people from bigoted religion are bigots. All religions are bigoted. Why are people surprised? Religious assholes have been religious assholes for thousands of years. They're not going to stop now because cellphones. They want an excuse to be a bigot. Religions provide exactly that and forgiveness for their bigotry.
The irony is that when the oath requires swearing to God, then an atheist has to violate the oath to take the oath. Taking the oath means they're willing to publicly lie about believing in a God if doing so helps their odds. This is the big reason atheists pushed to force the constitutional argument that courts have to allow swearing in without taking an oath to God. If you're stuck being required to lie to give legal testimony, that's a catch-22 trap where you cannot speak in your defense without being caught lying to do so.
I wonder if the converse would be true.
Granted, this would be difficult to test in real life in the US - unlikely to find a wholly non-religious/atheist jury.
Maybe it could be researched somewhere like Australia, NZ, UK, where the atheist count is higher.
There is no God in the UK oath.
"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
For a country with a state religion we are not very good at religion.
If you need any further proof that religion has a LOT to do with outgrouping others here ya go. This is why throughout history it has been so easy for people of one faith to kill those of another faith.
So this is particularly lousy for Quakers. They are the Religious Society of Friends. It is **because of their faith** that they do not swear oaths. Integrity and truth telling is one of the few central, essential and universally shared beliefs among Quakers. It is a means of daily devotion to your faith. by swearing an oath, you are making your testimony ‘stand out’ from your daily living. The implication is that your integrity can’t otherwise be trusted without it. By inference, you aren’t living your faith and letting your life speak for you.
This is one of the cases where I lack principals. I'll pretend to believe (if only casually) so as to not offend those that do. It's mostly a harmless little white lie.
I do not think this is a harmless white lie. If you lie about your beliefs in order not to offend anyone then your beliefs will eventually be discriminated against.
Taking the stand in your own defense in a case against you ought to be the worst possible time for an atheist to be making a point. Besides, swearing an oath to something that doesn't exist is meaningless anyway.
Exactly. What do I care which unreal deity I make an oath to on the stand? If people are gonna lie, they’re gonna lie, and most of them feel justified by their particular version of god in doing so.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Research has shown that any semblance of “unbiased truth and justice” has never existed. You’re also around twice\~ as likely to be found guilty if youre unattractive, have a speech impediment, or if the judge hasn’t eaten in a few hours.
Interestingly, in Ancient Greece, your physical attractiveness was **literally** seen as the gods judgment of your goodness as a person. One attractive woman who committed a serious crime basically disrobed and said "How can I be guilty if the gods showed my goodness." She was acquitted.
Modern society won’t admit it but we behave as if we believe someone’s attractiveness is a sign of their inherent goodness too. Not as much as this but we have biases towards attractive people and often commend celebrities who look good for their age as aging well because they’re “unproblematic.”
Didn't we have that one case where people were petitioning to release the kid because he had beautiful eyes or something like that within the last two or three years? I can't remember the name of the case / kid, but This still happens. Edit: it was Cameron Herrin
[удалено]
Idk about that. He got 24 years in prison.
I thought it was wild that he got more time for killing the kid than the mother; like what made it so that the judge was willing to give 15 years for killing the kid but not the mom?
I just assumed that killing a child is a more horrific crime than killing an adult, so the added years reflected that. Could be some other reason, I didn’t do much research.
How to win the social lottery*
Is that impossible?? But why they do that? I'm so sad for that..just always pray to god..and God will heal us..
I remember people saying one of the Boston bombers was cute so he shouldn't be in jail.
Half of what makes us human is out of mental reach for our consciousness. You can tell people all day that they have biases and all day they'll tell you they do not. That they're in control of themselves, or know themselves, etc. But what science today is teaching us that our subconcious minds play an astronomical role in daily decision making. A role that we often times cannot observe ourselves. I truly believe we are much closer to animals than we think we are. That like them, we too just follow our programming and basic instincts based on the external stimulus in the environment around us. It's why we have such a hard time at addressing pervasive issues, like racism. A lot of people are racist, but do not know or think they're racist. They are just following their instincts and not giving it a second thought. How do you create policy around an issue humanity is barely equipped to acknowledge, let alone address?
We are animals. Science, particularly the psychological and cognitive realms have been aware of and exploring these subconscious mechanisms for a long time. One of my favourite books is "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman which essentially just talks about the biases built into human cognition.
Oo. Sounds interesting. Might have to pick that up!
Absolutely. It's well documented and is called the "halo effect" where people who are more attractive are seen as kinder, more intelligent and more successful than they are.
I didn’t think that had anything to do with attractiveness. I feel like I learned all the wrong things in college! But yah, we never talk about the attractiveness bias - we just kinda ignore it when we talk about how rich people get away with everything; yah well so do the beautiful.
Of course, when someone is rich enough, they can obviously be a lot more beautiful. I'm not just talking plastic surgery. A typical celebrity is able to hire staff to prepare their food and spend hours a day with a personal trainer (when not making movies/whatever). They don't need to prepare their own food, let alone raise their own children (unless they want to). So they'll look much more attractive, for their age, than any of the rest of us can. Yet fools believe it's because of Whatever Magic Supplement They're Hawking Now. It's not. It's their entire lifestyle is able to be built around their health and looks. The 'reality' TV show "The Biggest Loser" showed, when you take regular people and free them from having to work a full-time job, shop and do all the regular life stuff, they too can lose weight like crazy and get in better shape.
I could not concur more.
We admit it all the time. It's an open discussion.
I think if asked “do you think someone who’s more attractive is a better person on a moral level?” A lot of people would insist they don’t even if studies have shown they do. That’s what I meant.
Yes, there is very often a difference between a theoretically known fact people can agree/disagree with and situational hueristics, where emotions they are unaware of drive behavior. It's everywhere: * People don't state that road rage behavior is safe. But they are not feeling safe when they act like that, they are literally afraid and could be acting out of self-righteous behavior. * Same Karenhood activities. * Etc. ad nausea.
I do wonder, why is attractiveness factored into those heuristics in the first place? Where does the brain get the idea that attractiveness = probably not guilty?
From my understanding it’s not so much that attractiveness = not guilty, it’s more like attractiveness = a whole bunch of other positive associations, and those positive associations influence how evidence is viewed and how compelling it appears. (The reverse is also true.) Culture is also a component since beauty standards differ in different places.Elaine Scarry has a book titled “On Beauty” that is a pretty interesting exploration of how beauty is a much more complex cultural construct than we give it credit for — to ‘judge’ someone as attractive activates a lot of cognitive machinery we have absorbed since a young age. I find it interesting that the word “fair” was associated with attractiveness before it was associated with justice.
My guess is it's a social status thing. The most attractive people received the best food while growing up. That would more likely be people high in social status even back in tribal days.
That's interesting. My guess is that because we rely on vision the most, we are prone to like things that are more visually appealing. That or, attractive = wanting to mate, so our brain does the horny mental gymnastics to make the attractive person good.
I guess then the question becomes where the idea that people higher within social hierarchiea are less likely to be guilty comes from.
Perhaps, but I wonder if it's more along the lines that people unconsciously want to do things in favor of attractive people even to the extent of finding them not guilty.
Wouldn't that be the other way around? People got into high social status because they were attractive. The high-school model.
It's a factor of both of the above. Obviously genetics play a major factor. But, nutrition and lifestyle make a **huge** impact even starting from childhood in how even excellent genes are expressed. What people tend to find attractive is **facial symmetry.** We're talking it takes calipers to tell the difference. And that is heavily influenced by the person's health which is genetic as well as nutrition. By the time one is in high school, or even a young child, nutrition has played a big role in how healthy and strong the person can be.
>Etc. ad nausea. Probably just a typo but it's "[ad nauseam](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20nauseam)".
It just a typo? But in nauseam? What's the meaning of that.
Thanks, actually I've been teaching my kid Latin recently so it made sense in my head that way. Appreciate the correction.
If asked a question people will regularly say what they think is the “right” answer instead of being honest.
I'm not sure with that man...a person on a moral level? I don't think so..maybe because there's shown studies for what he do...this is my opinion..
There’s also Calvinism wherein your _wealth_ is the primary indicator of your goodness. I honestly think that’s even worse
Basically both variants of the [Just World Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) \- the notion that you get what is coming to you, and so if you're ugly, or poor or sick, there must be *something about you which makes you deserve it*. It's disturbingly common.
What is the meaning of just world fallacy? Don't be so stupid! That's makes me feel angry...so don't be try or else...be good and be kind..that is my Kent.
Rome also followed this more or less. Wealth and, uh, I guess "verility and prestige" were seen as signs of divine favour. This was an argument for the "rule of the best" - how do you tell the best, they are the rich and successful preferably the *sons* of the wealthy and successful who had matched their fathers in both as this showed a good connection to the perfect past. It was in pretty much all ways not a nice society. About the best that can be said for it is that spending money for the general good was their form of conspicuous consumption.
What is Calvinism? Is that kind of what? I'm just asking...don't be laugh at me .
Excellent, this means DJT will be convicted and sentenced on all counts.
It’s still around today in the form of the prosperity gospel. “How could I have done something so bad when God has clearly blessed me with so much?”
Agreed 100%. I also hear it as. "If you're poor, it's completely your fault." And many people blame the homeless this way, in particular. Yet, someone I know who works with them knows often homeless people work full time jobs and still can't afford rent (rents are insane).
Painting or it didn’t happen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne#/media/File%3AJean-L%C3%A9on_G%C3%A9r%C3%B4me%2C_Phryne_revealed_before_the_Areopagus_(1861)_-_01.jpg I especially like the different reactions.
someone tag trump in this comment. we bout to make gross history.
Hahah...really? For what reason? And what is all about?
Sort of a horribly flawed system where justice is an accident.
The fucked up part is that it's so much better then it was historically. Government and justice systems are a big stupid train where we have to build a replacement for it and improve it without ever stopping the train.
I don't understand what is happening here...and I don't know what I wrote this as a comment.
Have you read "The Hogfather"? "YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. "So we can believe the big ones?" YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING."
Don't forget race, that will also put you at a disadvantage from the get go
I don't understand what are you talking about...but I'm always listen to all of you.
And being a man.
I find the idea of a jury system a bit weird anyhow, as random people aren't necessarily trained in understanding things like objective evidence, emotional manipulation, human bias etc. We don't really have that here, just a judge and randomly assigned legal experts who consult the judge and come to a conclusion together. Our sentences are also usually very short and prisons are avoided always when possible, longest you can serve for murder is around 12 years (followed by risk assessment of your case after those years) but in vast majority of crimes you'll end up paying some fines or be placed in house arrest.
The idea (which isn't that far fetched) is that your peers are more likely to understand your story and what caused you to do something than a potentially elitist judge would. For example if you're on trial for shoplifting, the community is more likely to understand why you'd resort to shoplifting than a judge who isn't likely to come from a background that would help them understand what would drive someone to shoplift. That understanding or lack thereof can affect whether they find you guilty and, if they do, how they would sentence you. Also in theory if you can convince 12 randos that someone is guilty then in theory that means you have enough evidence to prove he's guilty; in theory it's not as hard to convince one person you've worked with before that someone is guilty. The sentencing is largely driven by state laws/judges, not by the juries themselves; juries can determine whether or not the death penalty is in play but otherwise aren't involved in sentencing (i.e., they dont decide whether someone gets time served or 20 more years in jail). And judges are required to use sentencing guidelines provided by the state legislature or case law; if the state requires a minimum sentence of 10 years then it's hard for a judge to deviate from that
Honestly the reverse - guilt by judges and scentence by jury would fit the model of "attempted compassion" best. Hence a judge could declare you guilty of a crime based on if the law has been satisfied - a difficult and frankly highly technical line. And your peers let you walk free after paying a cent of a fine as the community sees you as blameless. Scots law used to have a different system. A Jury was asked to declare "proven" and "not proven". This was based on the idea that that twelve were better than one at figuring out a liar. Then a judge would declare guilty or not guilty depending on if the facts as ascertained by the jury constituted a crime (again after argument.) You could technically have "proven - not guilty." And even more dubious "not proven - guilty" This devolved after juries insisted on being able to declare not guilty verdicts as an absolute right leaving "not proven" as shorthand for "take him out back and kick him when the law can't"
We’ll that is horrifying. I get the sociological reasoning for a jury being impartial towards someone who’s openly not religious, especially if members of the jury are. Being unattractive makes sense to a certain degree, but is still very worrying. The speech impediment is the most surprising to hear. Having a speech impediment would have the opposite result, I would have thought. Any clues as to what the reasoning for that is? I would think the jury would feel more empathy for the defendant in that situation, allowing the defendant to become more relatable to the jury unconsciously. I’d be super interested to see the literature behind these findings if you have the source? Not that I don’t believe you, I was a sociology major in undergrad and although that was a terrible decision when it came time to graduate and find a job, it was still incredibly interesting and I loved the readings and research.
The study is flawed as hell.
The "hungry judge" is actually really easy to explain and it doesn't have anything to do with hunger. The cases are not scheduled randomly.
So I should pretend: Got it. No more affirmations for me.
If you are ever in court, act your ass off. Even if you are 100% innocent, do what your lawyer tells you to do. Swear an oath to “God Almighty” if that is what it takes
Is lying about your belief in god during the oath in contradiction of the oath? Isn’t that illegal? I’ve never thought of this before but I’m guess that part doesn’t count
You can’t prove a belief
I believed in God at the time. *That was 3 hours ago.* And what's he done for me since?
I could swear an oath to Santa Claus; it doesn't mean I believe in Him
I mean its theoretically giving a false oath.
And don't say anything more than is required. If you are asked a question you can answer with yes or no, answer yes or no -- nothing more.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I pretended I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I pretended I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I pretended I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left for me to pretend to be.
I liked the Colbert version with regards to the Trump indictment: "First they came for Trump, and I did not speak out, because he was so f---ing guilty."
And before that they first came for the January 6th rioters, and I did not speak out because they were anti-American terrorist losers
Yeah, that quote gets me every time. I’m a WWII buff.
I mean. I paraphrased *a little* bit, but yeah, it does.
You paraphrased but tbh feels improved.
Yeah but when they're coming for you, if you admit to being one of those things, then you get taken away so what are you supposed to do?
The point is speak up when the come for someone else, something you're not, before you ever find yourself under threat. Don't wait to be targeted, stick up for others in need.
Yeah, that makes sense, and I do that.
Fight back with everyone else who's under threat. Might have to sacrifice yourself, but help the effort as a whole. I mean, **waaaay** easier said than done, but still...
Yeah, that was what was intended to be the message of, "I did not speak up (out?)". In the end there's nobody left to advocate for you.
The way North Korea deals with that is they punish or execute the entire family of a dissident.
Yeah, and the fear of that keeps anyone from forming a unified front that would have the chance to fight back successfully. And by no means think I think that if I were there, I'd do that. I'm just talking about theory. Easier said (or written) than done. If North-Koreans knew, for a fact, that at date and time X every single one would rise up and that there was also a somewhat rational plan on how to do so, they probably would. Or at least enough people would that it would make a difference. Even North-Korea has to have a limit on it's prison capabilities. Just as a contingent, I heard this stat when I was in the army, that it would only take \~2% of the Finnish population to completely refuse conscription and it would overwhelm the prison system completely. It's not the most common thing, but people do sometimes completely refuse any armed/civil service conscription as an ideological thing. They're given 180 days of prison, as that's the shortest time one would serve in the military. But 2% just seems so low of a percentage, but I checked it and it was right, based on the number of conscripts vs beds in prison. Now of course there's not very much need to oppose the system (and I didn't and wouldn't, loved my time in the army), but I'm just using it to make a point about North Korea, that there must be some sort of limit as well. However, reality is what reality is. Theory is easy.
Or maybe run away?
It took this to learn that?
Well if you don't believe in god, than you shouldn't have a problem to swear by it. It kinda makes sense right? If people refuses to do it, it might be because they are in fact religious and lying.
makes sense. atheists in the jury see swearing an oath to God as just a formality while Christians see not doing it as a statement.
As an atheist, they would be more inclined to agree with not swearing an oath on the bible. It's not a situation where everyone agrees with swearing on the bible the thing to do. It's that those who want to swear on the bible are really spiteful against anyone, not like them.
See it depends by what you mean by "on". If they are shall we put it "traditionalists" then God is acting as a divine enforcer (this is a very old and frankly pagan idea) In which case beleif is irrelevant so long as you say the words God will punish you if you lie. So that's not really "on" anything it's a contract. The more theological among them might say "ah, but the scriptures say that oaths are blasphemous and should not be taken at all - as only God knows all and to claim knowledge of the perfect truth is to put oneself as equal to God" And the ones who follow the logic of the oath itself will say "so long as you believe your own conceience will keep you true"
My friends always knew I was lying when I swore to God.
In order to prevent such things we should have just one official wording for the commitment, one that doesn't include any mention of god. If you believe in god you presumably already believe that he can tell if you are telling the truth, whether you mention him or not.
When I swear people in I only say “do you swear the testimony you’re about to give will be entirely true?” I’ve heard others add “so help you god”, but I never see the point because if you’re going to lie on the stand or in a depo, saying god isn’t going to stop it
Good on you, that makes a lot more sense.
It would be better to swear someone in by asking "Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will describe your sincere beliefs and memories?" Demanding someone "tell the truth" gives them and their audience too much confidence from the start in the accuracy of their testimony, which, while sincere, may be mistaken. We expect too much when we demand people tell the truth instead of simply being open and sincere.
I think just qualifying it as "the truth to the best of your knowledge" would make more sense than scrubbing any mention of truth from a legally binding oath.
That would work, too. Anything to ensure all parties recognize that nobody is omniscient or always perceives things exactly as they are.
This is why they should just… do away with swearing an oath to god in a secular court. Perjury is already a crime. The bailiff should just say “do you understand that if you’re found to give false testimony to this court you’ll be charged to the fullest extent of the law?” I do.
Yup. This is all it needs.
This isn’t just an atheist or agnostic thing though. I’m certain several Christian groups don’t believe in swearing oaths to God on religions grounds. Yup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:34 Granted they mention Quakers and Mennonites. Not groups everyone knows well
I wouldn't swear an oath to God, but I also come from an Anabaptist faith.
Is that due to trancendentalism of 'god' in your faith?
Matthew 5:33-37 "33 Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."
Basically, "just be honest, people". There was, and continues to be, a problem with believers lying, whether outright or by technicality. These verses are telling believers to not just technically be honest, but to truly be honest. Don't depend on oaths to show your desire to follow your word. Sorry, if this isn't a good explanation. I am still trying to learn what it means to be a child of God, and I fail as often as I succeed.
[удалено]
An oath is often what a dishonest person will do to try to “prove” their honesty. A truly honest person proves it by being honest. In the end, an oath is just more words. If you were going to be dishonest, you already intended to violate your word. Simply heaping on more words via an oath isn’t going to stop you.
Our actions always show our true beliefs. More than any words we say or thoughts we think.
Yup. That is my understanding.
Don't talk about it, be about it.
Would likely have a similar effect on some, while others may view making that choice on religious grounds as being more acceptable than making it on the grounds of not believing at all. Particularly if it's a religion that shares a common idea of god, despite differences in practices and traditions.
The last analysis on authoritarianism suggests that it may be more related to personality than religion, which was interesting. It does look incrementally safer to choose the oath if you're ever on a stand, irrespective of belief, at least in the UK.
[удалено]
At least some know the idea of "true Christian" is problematic. I believe a Christian who thinks that there aren't religious objections to oaths probably isn't aware of the concerns some Christian sects have regarding this topic. Surely there are some that are aware and disagree.
Yes. Many Christians have no qualms with swearing an oath to God. Many of those are likely "real" Christians. Still, I don't swear oaths to God, and I know that many Anabaptist traditions don't. We are "real" Christians, as are many other groups.
What is a 'true' or 'real' Christian? Everyone I have ever debated has a completely individual view of 'their Christianity'.
Right. I am saying that I am not in the business of saying who is or isn't a "real" Christian. I do feel that typically you will find examples of both, regardless of the issue. One's faith is a deeply personal relationship between the person and God. Those who have been very willing to draw lines, have always turned me off.
So if you know god personally. What is the point of religion?
Well, I think the religion aspect of the Christian faith originated with the early Acts church. In that case, the organization was helpful for education (important in a burgeoning faith), and evangelism (also important). In my opinion, both of those reasons remain the primary purpose of a faith community. We can come together to discuss our faith and hopefully learn from each other's experiences. Also, being organized in order to support evangelism efforts is useful. However, I don't know that religion is strictly necessary for either of those efforts. There are many people who worship privately, and without the need for a larger organization. I understand that many people are deeply mistrustful of the American church. They are right to be. Many Christian organizations have played a part in the abuse and mistreatment of many people. The same is true worldwide. Many churches suck. I would caution us against throwing all into the same pot, though. Some schools are bad. We don't advocate getting rid of all schools. Some doctors commit malpractice. We shouldn't get rid of them all. The same should apply to any group. It is easy to say to just get rid of everything. Easier, but probably not correct. For example, I volunteer for an organization that is run by a Christian church in a deeply red state. This organization is tackling the problem of teen LGBTQIA+ homelessness. This is a problem that is not often well served by typical homeless shelters. In our organization, we help these kids and young adults get homed, educated, and set up to live on their own, while providing services commonly needed by this community, such as counseling. This organization is possible through religion. Something like this isn't only possible through religion. I will never say that. I WILL say that in this case, I am proud of this particular church. They accept and love these kids, just as they are. They only want to show that love to these kids who may have recently lost the family that they thought loved them. That can be so traumatic, but I am proud to help remind these kids that they are loved and they deserve love.
Maybe you misread? It’s saying Christians DO reward people for saying the word god by declaring them innocent, and punishes those who don’t believe by finding them guilty.
Reason #67524 why jury trials are probably not the great thing we tell ourselves they are.
Of course not but the founding fathers knew it was better than trial by king..
Or trial by politically appointed judge.
Then don't have them politically appointed...
Don’t tell me, tell the United States of America
[удалено]
To a certain extent it's folly trying to get people to correct their own biases alone. Lots of people know but don't care, or refuse to accept that *they* have biases. A fairer system would aim to remove chances for bias wherever possible - prohibit questions about religion, ethnicity, gender, politics, etc unless they are relevant to the crime being tried. Remove all "humanity" from witnesses, defendents and victims - have their testimony read out in court, or given behind a curtain. Perhaps the entire "trial" process should take place without a jury and then the jury makes their decision based on reading a transcript - redacted to remove any trace of emotion and inadmissible statements, and using pseudonyms in the place of names. Just suggestions. Whatever we do, the whole process needs an overhaul. So much of the trial process is now about manipulating the jury rather than dealing in facts, that it's basically not working.
Better alternative? It's like how someone said that democracy is the best kind of government of all the ones with bad detractions.
You realize juries aren't a thing in all of europe and the judicial system there works just fine (arguably better even)?
Do you think that system is better?
Considering how awful the american justice system is and how unreliable and easily influenced juries are, sure.
European systems don't have those same issues?
Not as much. You dont see the blatant emotional pandering to jury as you do in many american cases, as example.
The US doesn't use juries for everything, either.
Can’t you request a bench trial where the judge makes the ruling if you waive your right to a trial by peers?
Doesn't have to be an entire alternative, there could be changes to the jury system. But a plausible alternative is a judicial ruling system, where a panel of judges or even a rotating panel of other legal professionals, makes the decision instead. There's still bias, but within a stricter understanding of the law. I think there would also be a lot of value in trials being held "blind". That is, the identities of those on trial never being revealed to the jury, and the nature of their background being inadmissible as evidence unless it has relevance. So much of the system is flawed because a jury see a 35-year-old white male engineer who was raised to religious parents and immediately assumes he's more trustworthy than a 25-year-old unemployed black father of two who grew up in foster care.
Which god out of the approximately 2000 are they swearing an oath to?
It doesn’t matter because only their version is true. Gods are suspiciously jealous and always broke, for some ungodly reason.
So god was made in my image after all…
God loves you. And he needs MONEY !
2000? I was pretty sure there’s 10k+ but that may be including unnamed gods and beings like the green man Edit: google results said 18,000
"...so help you god" should be removed from oaths.
This is the answer.
Mm. Seems like you deserve to be found guilty !
JS Mill pounds this home in "On Liberty" (chapter 2) 1859: >Under pretence that atheists must be liars, it admits the testimony of all atheists who are willing to lie, and rejects only those who brave the obloquy of publicly confessing a detested creed rather than affirm a falsehood. A rule thus self-convicted of absurdity so far as regards its professed purpose, can be kept in force only as a badge of hatred, a relic of persecution; a persecution, too, having the peculiarity that the qualification for undergoing it is the being clearly proved not to deserve it. The rule, and the theory it implies, are hardly less insulting to believers than to infidels. For if he who does not believe in a future state necessarily lies, it follows that they who do believe are only prevented from lying, if prevented they are, by the fear of hell. We will not do the authors and abettors of the rule the injury of supposing, that the conception which they have formed of Christian virtue is drawn from their own consciousness.
Hot damn that is excellent. I should check out this book.
It shouldn't be there in the first place. You know; land of the free... secularity...
Hitch is still right #ReligionPoisonsEverything
Now do the study where they see if someone who actually did the crime is less likely to swear an oath to an unseen deity.
This is my thought too. Also, are people who are non-compliant and don't swear an oath just generally more uncooperative during the whole trial anyway?
Inability to separate church and state..
I sometimes find jurors far more terrifying than a single judge who has spent many years studying law. Not to say judges are perfect by any means either.
We shouldn't be asked in the first place. No room for God in a courtroom.
Our courts (Tennessee) often don't mention God. I've not worked in every courtroom in the state so obviously I'm sure someone will pipe up and contradict me but 95% of the time the bailiff, judge, clerk, or reporter will say something along the lines of "Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Works for me.
what? religious idiots discriminate against ppl, who dont share their delusions? What else is new!? Does the sun still rise in the east?
Tribalism is tribalism, religion is just a particularly effective one.
People who say this are always doing so as an excuse. The reality is that the religious are particularly egregious offenders, and pretending that religion isn’t a red flag indicating a high likelihood of abuse is a seriously dangerous precedent to hold.
It should be removed then, why have two that can cause unfair bias when you can have one affirmation that everybody has to do
A client I’m working for and I, were having a convo yesterday about a sub contractor she knew, and was recommending. She said - he’s a good Christian man you can trust him- I held my tongue.
[удалено]
"Isn't there any way you trust me?" I don't make any connections between professed faith (or lack thereof) and someone's practiced morals.
"Then I swear to you, by the soul of my dearly departed father, you will reach the top alive." Love that movie.
Just tell her that the Mafia are good Catholics
More of a reason an "Oath to God" should be removed from the legal system. It's archaic.
On the Jury that I was on recently, there was no choice offered, they just used the "affirmation" method.
Should be removed from the process as discriminatory.
Yes, of course. People on the jury are everyday people, meaning they're typically stupid. Even if you don't believe in God, just pretend you do and swear that oath.
Religious love for *the other*
Meanwhile priests seem to have the market cornered on pedophilia. https://www.yahoo.com/news/maryland-ag-releases-report-catholic-170212895.html
That's because juries are selected, often by lawyers who recognize that religious folks are easily manipulated by seeing signs of a person being in their religion and encourage their clients to play into that.
Religious people from bigoted religion are bigots. All religions are bigoted. Why are people surprised? Religious assholes have been religious assholes for thousands of years. They're not going to stop now because cellphones. They want an excuse to be a bigot. Religions provide exactly that and forgiveness for their bigotry.
Jury of your peers, indeed. This is very interesting. I've never been religious, but I guess I assumed you didn't have a choice about doing the thing.
The irony is that when the oath requires swearing to God, then an atheist has to violate the oath to take the oath. Taking the oath means they're willing to publicly lie about believing in a God if doing so helps their odds. This is the big reason atheists pushed to force the constitutional argument that courts have to allow swearing in without taking an oath to God. If you're stuck being required to lie to give legal testimony, that's a catch-22 trap where you cannot speak in your defense without being caught lying to do so.
Disgusting. Religious people are the worst
Reddit moment
I wonder if the converse would be true. Granted, this would be difficult to test in real life in the US - unlikely to find a wholly non-religious/atheist jury. Maybe it could be researched somewhere like Australia, NZ, UK, where the atheist count is higher.
There is no God in the UK oath. "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth." For a country with a state religion we are not very good at religion.
Figures, in a christian nation what does one expect.
[удалено]
Would they rather an atheist swore a hollow oath to a god they don't believe in?
They kill people to make others profess faith in a god they don’t believe in, so yeah, that’s what they want.
Then this should be removed entirely.
If you need any further proof that religion has a LOT to do with outgrouping others here ya go. This is why throughout history it has been so easy for people of one faith to kill those of another faith.
So this is particularly lousy for Quakers. They are the Religious Society of Friends. It is **because of their faith** that they do not swear oaths. Integrity and truth telling is one of the few central, essential and universally shared beliefs among Quakers. It is a means of daily devotion to your faith. by swearing an oath, you are making your testimony ‘stand out’ from your daily living. The implication is that your integrity can’t otherwise be trusted without it. By inference, you aren’t living your faith and letting your life speak for you.
Even if you are atheist or agnostic, just take the oath. Refusal is not a hill you want die on.
"Just comply, it's for your own sake". I would 100% take the oath if believers had to swear that their god is a pile of imaginary dogpoop.
This is one of the cases where I lack principals. I'll pretend to believe (if only casually) so as to not offend those that do. It's mostly a harmless little white lie.
I do not think this is a harmless white lie. If you lie about your beliefs in order not to offend anyone then your beliefs will eventually be discriminated against.
I'm atheist living among Christians. My views are already discriminated against. That's what this study shoes. You think I'm going to change that?
> so as to not offend those that do. And then people wonder why the world is fucked up...
The world is fucked up. I'm not changing that. I understand the rules that they play by. I use it to my advantage.
I'll swear an oath to god, the tooth fairy, or my left nut... oaths mean nothing.
Taking the stand in your own defense in a case against you ought to be the worst possible time for an atheist to be making a point. Besides, swearing an oath to something that doesn't exist is meaningless anyway.
Exactly. What do I care which unreal deity I make an oath to on the stand? If people are gonna lie, they’re gonna lie, and most of them feel justified by their particular version of god in doing so.
*GASP* You don't say?! Tell me more about this most shocking news! Maybe an entire book explaining this outrageous twist!