 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 28 16. Contrary view as to utility.-On the other hand, there are equally eminent authorities who have taken a contrary view. Kant1 regards the taking of an oath as a security for ensuring the trustworthiness of testimony. Wigmore2 after observing that the theory of oath in modem common law is a subjective one, states that the oath- "is a method of reminding the witness strongly of the Divine punishment somewhere in store for false swearing, and thus of putting him in a frame of mind calculated to speak only the truth as he saw it." 1. Kant Philosophy of Law, Dr. W. Hashes Translation, (1887), pp. 151-152. 2. Wigmore Evidence (2nd Edn.), 1923, Vol. III, p. 857, para. 1816.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back