Well, my reason of choice for the lack of veritaserum/vows at trials is "Corrupt Wizengamot", since we already saw one attempt at fixing a trial in canon, and one innocent thrown into prison without trial in canon.

Though in my humble opinion, introducing things that ruin your plot is not a good idea for an author. (I also do not see any need for the plot of canon HP to have veritaserum or unbreakable vows.)

So, yeah, pet peeve: Authors adding stuff half-way in the story, without thinking of the consequences such things would have ahd on earlier parts.

 

wat?

Guess you better never end up in court. Below is an example in both English-speaking and a non-English-speaking country[ies].

Here's oaths in Greek and Roman times.

The idea of swearing an oath before God or a god in court is precisely that it would then be unbreakable lest God/that god punished you (usually by taking your life). Although there are now secular equivalents, the underlying belief remains that every vow or oath is supposed to be unbreakable.

So in a court system where the truth is necessary to condemn someone else? No, it's not immoral.

 

A particularly annoying peeve of mine. When the story starts by summarising everything that happened before the fic started.

 

First off those oaths are an appeal to the conscience of the witnesses/defendants. You don't suffer any consequences for lying. An unbreakable oath takes away that choice. Lying or even embellishing the truth can have dire consequences. Its basically a death sentence for lying. Are you okay with that? I'm not.

 

First of all, HP canon does not have magically enforced oaths in any form. The only closest option is the Unbreakable Vow.

Secondly, even if you consider the Unbreakable Vow, you will have to include in conditions to avoid self incrimination and unrelated questions. That dilutes the Vow enough to exploit it in a way that makes it not much different from relying on the word of the witness.

 

Well the original intent of the oath was that god would smite you if you broke it. That may not be the case any more but to those that believed it back in the day that would have been quite a consequence.

 

Given what we know about the punishments in Wizarding Britain - Akzkaban, go mad in a few weeks according to Lupin - would you be ok with letting people lie as witnesses, and send innocents to Azkaban?

 

In "Forging the Sword" by Myst Shadow. There is a disccusion about this between Harry and Ron. Basically no one would agree to give up their free will even if the Vow was not to hurt other people. Basically people want the freedom to lie, cheat, steal, and hurt others and hopefully not have those things happen to them.

 

Not really. Unbreakable vows work absolutely fine. "I swear to answer with the truth as I know it to those questions in this interrogation I'll answer." And any skilled judge or prosecutor will be able to interprete the answers, and the refusals to answer. Just like people today already judge a testimony. Knowing that what is said is no a lie is an enormous advantage in judging a case.

 

I'm quite certain people lied even then. If getting an oath was all that's required to ensure someone's truthfulness we wouldn't need evidence now would we?
Whether God smites liars or not is a matter of belief. But I'd rather not be punished with death for lying.

 

Of course some people did, that's not the point, the punishment COULD have been real and many believed it was.

 

Look man I want to avoid this discussion with you because you're convinced that you're right. There will always be cases where what you're saying may seem justified.
The only problem....... it completely disregards free will. I want my right to be able to lie thank you very much. Feel free to convict me of crimes I've committed by proving them beyond doubt but don't take away my right to defend myself by lying if I have to.

---------- Post automerged at 09:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------

So it came down to belief. Some did some didn't. But I am talking about real consequences here.

 

The fact that you don't see your wording possibly violating self incrimination is telling.

 

This has been answered by others, but the heart of those oaths are precisely that you suffer consequences, even death, since that is what was believed.

A vow is somewhat equal to an oath. In both you give your word that you will do something or not do something. The difference between the two are minimal for this discussion.

Whether people lied or not isn't the point. The point's that English law and various others all carried with it the idea that if you perjured yourself in court, you'd be punished for death.

I won't argue a personal belief you hold, but I was pointing out that such an idea (death for violating a vow) isn't at all immoral in western society. In fact, it's quite moral, especially when that lie convicts an innocent person, which was the context of this discussion.

 

I understand the argument. If you allow truth drugs, even on a voluntary base, then you force everyone accused in court to take them, or be branded a liar. That's why lie detectors are not allowed in court over here - flat out banned no matter if they work or not. On the other hand, I don't see why witnesses should be allowed to lie. Lieing as a witness is illegal here.

Another point is that if something as inhuman as a stay in Azkaban is on the line, not using every resource one has to make sure no innocent is sentenced to madness and death by torture is simply unacceptable. Pensieves, veritaserum, and vows should be used. maybe not on the accused, but at the very least on witnesses.

And if it can be used on witnesses, one has to consider why one would deny the opportunity to defend oneself with a vow or truth serum to an accused.

Not that that matters much in HP. From what we have seen in canon, their trials barely deserve the name if they can be manipulated as we saw in Harry's case. Truth serum and vows would vastly improve those.

 

Nothing self-incriminating there. Note the last phrase, "I'll answer." In other words, the vow isn't to answer every question, it's to be truthful in every question that he chooses to answer. That, again, is exactly what western society/law is based upon. And in the US, the "I'll answer" caveat is the rough equivalent of "I plead the fifth amendment."

 

The fact that you don't even think of witnesses, who do not have any right to lie to start with, is telling. And it's not clear if your rigths are violated if you can refuse to answer, but are not allowed to lie. After all, if you lie and accuse someone falsely, you will be punished for that, even if you did it in defense of yourself. There's not unlimited right to lie as an accused here.

 

The difference in that you have the option of "I plead the fifth amendment", and lie, in the case where there is no magical binding on you.

If the witness under Unbreakable Vow with that wording was asked a question "Did you kill the subject?", a non answer straightaway skews the Wizengamot towards their guilt.

---------- Post automerged at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 ----------

Most legal systems allow witnesses to not provide any evidence that is self incriminating.

 

Maybe that's just the difference between outlooks. I don't believe I have a choice to lie, because I have given my word that I won't.

 

The Wikipedia article on the 5th amendment doesn't state you are allowed to lie in your defense, just that you have the right to refuse to answer a question, and that your refusal cannot be used against you. Which ruling stated the right to outright lie?

---------- Post automerged at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:58 ----------

Yes, but that's just the right to refuse to answer a question, it doesn't allow you to lie as a witness.