Oaths' power weighed

What is an oath, and how serious is it if one lies under oath? What does the Church teach about oaths?

Such questions were answered by Michael Costello, a lawyer with the firm of Tobin and Dempf in Albany, among whose clients is the Albany Diocese; and Rev. Stanislaus Swierzowski, who served in the diocesan Tribunal from 1963-'79 and is now pastor of St. Casimir's and St. John the Baptist parishes in Amsterdam.

Distinctions

However, the lawyer said, that distinction is without meaning today, because penalties for perjury are the same regardless of whether the witness has sworn "to God."

Oaths, since they began to be used millennia ago, have been thought to invoke the conscience of a witness and encourage him or her to tell the truth.

"They have a statutory effect but also meaningful value," Mr. Costello explained.

Forms

All oaths are of the same significance, Mr. Costello added, from those taken in a civil or criminal proceeding to oaths at an unemployment insurance appeal.

"The legal responsibility remains the same," he said.

Church teaching

Catholic beliefs about oaths stem from the Bible; in the Old Testament, even God takes oaths. Jesus' incarnation is said to fulfill God's oath to send the Messiah.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has this to say about oaths: "You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, `Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord according to your vow.' But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven...nor by the earth...nor by Jerusalem. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your `yes' mean `yes,' and your `no' mean `no.' Anything more is from the evil one" (Matthew 5:33-37).

Based on that passage, said Father Swierzowski, members of some religions refuse to take oaths in court. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, Jesus' words are explained as limiting people from taking oaths about trivial matters. Oaths taken in court are acceptable; the priest noted that witnesses in the Tribunal's annulment cases are asked to take oaths.

"You're not supposed to take oaths frivolously," he added. "The Second Commandment is not to take the Lord's name in vain, which also refers to oaths."

Perjury

* Third-degree perjury, the lowest form, involves a witness simply swearing falsely under oath. It is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison and up to a $1,000 fine.

* Second-degree perjury, a felony, involves swearing falsely under oath "and with intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official function," said Mr. Costello.

Even when renewing a driver's license, he explained, people sign an affirmation swearing that they have given true information. In order to constitute perjury, any falsehood made must be "material to the action involved;" in other words, if your false statement is that you gave an incorrect address, you can probably argue that it isn't perjury.

Second-degree perjury is punishable by one to four years in prison and a fine of $5,000 or, if one has gained financially from the crime, twice the amount gained.

* First-degree perjury is a "class D felony." One must swear falsely and his or her statement consist of "testimony material to the action" involved; perjurers at this level can be sentenced to up to seven years in prison and a fine of $5,000 or twice the amount gained from their crime.

Exceptions?

But legally, Mr. Costello said, "There are no exceptions in the perjury section of penal law in regard to the nature of the testimony."

Father Swierzowski commented: "I think any kind of lying is always wrong."

Prosecution

"I think efforts should be made to get at the truth; but if a person is repentant, there is room for forgiveness and mercy and reconciliation," he said. Still, perjury by a leader might be another case, since "the confidence you have in a person is certainly diminished."

On the legal side, Mr. Costello said that prosecution for perjury is "not a regular event." While he called perjury "clearly a violation of the law," he added that "prosecutions for perjury, if they could be proven, would be manifold."

As it stands, he continued, it can be difficult to interest a district attorney's office in prosecuting a case of perjury when there are more pressing cases of violent felonies awaiting trial. He called it an issue "of priorities and practicalities. Should every citation issued by a police officer be brought to trial? Are they?"

Proving perjury can also be difficult, he said. Witnesses may answer questions falsely but believe they are answering truthfully.

Still important

The legal system of oaths and punishment for perjuries "is the most effective mechanism that has been designed," he said. "To make it more effective, you'd have to have some high-profile prosecutions."

(09-24-98) [[In-content Ad]]