Strouthes D.P. Law and Politics: A Cross-Cultural Encyclopedia
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
MlSPRISION
MISPRISION
Misprision
is the
illegal
act
of
failing
to
report
to
the
proper authorities
knowledge
that
one has
concerning
the
commis-
sion
of a
crime.
In the
United States,
as
well
as
in
many other societies, misprision
is not
recog-
nized
as a
legal
offense.
This
is
changing, how-
ever,
in
some parts
of the
United States, where
doctors
and
teachers
who see
evidence
of
child
abuse
may
face
criminal liability
if
they
fail
to
report
it to the
proper authorities.
The use of
misprision
is
common
in
Com-
munist
countries, where
it is one
tool among
many
that governments
use to
control
the be-
havior
of
people.
The
negative side
to
mispri-
sion
as a
legal
offense
is
that
it
degrades morally
acceptable
behavior
by
forcing
friends
and
fam-
ily
members
to
report each other
for the
com-
mission
of
crimes.
Following
are two
statutes
from
the
formerly
Communist Hungarian government regarding
misprision with respect
to
civil
and
military
de-
sertion (Ministry
of
Justice
of the
Hungarian
Peoples Republic, 1978:
133,189):
Section
219
(1) A
person
who
obtains credible information:
(a)
of
preparation
for the
perpetration
of
an
offence
defined
in
Section 217, pars.
(2)
through
(4)
[dealing with leaving
the
country without permission],
or
the
offence
defined
in
Section 218,
(b)
of a
soldier making preparations
for de-
serting abroad [Section 343, par.
(3)],
(c)
of an
offence
as
defined
in the
clauses
above,
committed
yet
still
undetected,
and
fails
to
report this
to the
authori-
ties
as
soon
as
possible, commits
a
misdemeanour
and
shall
be
punished
with deprivation
of
liberty
up to one
year,
or
with reformatory
and
educa-
tive
labour,
or
with
a fine.
(2)
The kin of the
perpetrator
is not
punish-
able
for
misprision.
Section
344
A
person
who
obtains credible information
of
preparations made
by a
person
to
desert
to a
foreign
country,
or of
such
offence
committed
but not yet
discovered,
and
fails
to
report
it to
the
authorities
as
soon
as he can do so,
com-
mits
a
felony
and
shall
be
punished with dep-
rivation
of
liberty
up to
three years.
The kin
of the
perpetrator
is not
punishable
for
misprision.
Ministry
of
Justice
of the
Hungarian Peoples
Republic. (1978)
The
Statutes
of
the
Hungar-
ian
Peoples
Republic,
ActIVof
1978
on
Crimi-
nal
Code.
Monarchy
is a
form
of
government
in
which
only
one
person rules;
the
term
is
derived
from
the
Greek words
monos
(alone)
and
archein
(to be
first,
to
rule).
The ex-
istence
of a
monarchy does
not
mean that only
one
person
has
power (such
a
government would
be
an
autocracy),
but
rather that
one
person
os-
tensibly makes
the
decisions.
For
example,
the
British government
is a
monarchy, although
the
ruler,
the
king
or
queen,
has
little
genuine power.
On the
other hand, those
who do
have
the
true
power
of the
government,
the
legislators
who
sit in
Parliament,
do
everything
in the
name
of
the
monarch. Likewise,
the
court system oper-
ates
in the
name
of the
king
or
queen;
the
judges
speak
on
behalf
of the
king
or
queen
and the
criminal prosecutors (known
as
crown prosecu-
tors)
act as
legal representatives
of the
king
or
queen,
who is the one
ostensibly
offended
by
criminal acts rather than
the
society
as a
whole.
The
term
monarch
is
most
often
associated
with
a
monarch
of a
particular type,
a
king
or
172
MONARCHY
MULTIPLICITY
OF
LEGAL LEVELS
queen,
who is
royalty.
Thus,
the
term
monarch
is
often
used synonymously
with
a
royal ruler,
a
king
or a
queen. However,
the
term
can
also
be
applied accurately
to
autocratic leaders such
as
Adolf
Hitler,
Joseph Stalin,
Mao
Zedong,
and
Fidel
Castro.
All
autocrats
are
monarchs,
but not
all
monarchs
are
autocrats.
The
theory
of a
multi-
plicity
of
legal levels, also
known
as the
theory
of
legal pluralism,
was de-
veloped
by
anthropologist Leopold
Pospisil.
The
theory,
briefly
stated,
is
that society
is
composed
of
various functioning groups
and
subgroups
at
various
"levels"
of
society,
from
small, less
in-
clusive
groups (such
as
families
and
schools)
at
the
bottom
levels
to
large
and
more inclusive
groups (such
as the
state
of
Nebraska
or the
United States
of
America)
at the top
levels. Each
of
these groups
has its own
legal system, usually
subordinate
to the
legal systems
of the
group
or
groups
at the
next higher level, until
one
reaches
the top
level
of the
nation
and its
supreme
legal
system.
The
theory depends upon
the
idea
that
a
society
has a
societal structure, meaning
that
it
is
composed
of
groups
and
subgroups that have
a
system
of
mutual interrelationships.
In
other
words, these groups
are
ultimately connected
to
one
another, each through
its
connections
to yet
other groups
and its
partially shared member-
ships
with
other groups.
For
example,
if one is a
student
at a
state university
in New
York
State,
he or she is a
member
of the
group
of
people
who are
members
of the
State University
of New
York.
The
State University
of New
York
group
is
tied
to the New
York State government,
an-
other group, which
is
tied
to the
United States
government, which
is in
turn tied
to
many
of the
other groups
in the
United States,
and so on.
Halle
Selassie,
emperor
of
Ethiopia,
ruled
as a
monarch
from
1930
to
1974.
Groups
typically have functions.
That
is,
they
are
composed
of
people brought together
to get
something done.
The
function
of the
third-shift group
of
workers
at an
auto parts
plant might
be to
make spark plugs
or
fuel
pumps.
The
function
of a
classroom
at a
high
school
in
Kentucky
is to
teach young adults
knowledge.
The
function
of a
nuclear
family
is
to
socialize
and to
provide
for the
physical needs
of
children
and
prepare them
for
membership
in
the
larger society.
All
groups
that
have
functions
also have
leaders
and
authorities.
This
must
be so
because
otherwise nothing would ever
get
done
by the
groups,
and
they would cease
to be
functioning
groups.
For
example, take
the
example
of
the
group
that
operates
a
factory.
Decisions, requiring
an
authority, must
be
made about
the
product
the
173
MULTIPLICITY
or
LF.C.AL
LLVLLS
MULTIPLICITY
OF
LEGAL LEVELS
factory
produces, about
who the
workers
are and
who
selects
them,
about when
and how
much
workers
are to be
paid, about procuring
the ma-
terials
the
factory uses,
and
many
other
things.
Also, there must
be an
authority
who
settles dis-
agreements among
the
members
of the
group.
If two
workers disagree about
how
something
is
to be
made,
a
decision
has to be
made
as to
which
method will
be
used. Behind these decisions
are
principles,
the
laws that guide behavior
in the
factory.
In the
nuclear
family,
as
well, decisions
have
to be
made,
and
someone
or
some subgroup
(usually
the
parents) have
to
lead
the
implemen-
tation
of the
decisions made.
The
"rules" laid
down
by
parents
for
their
children
are
some
of
the
laws
of
that
family.
An
important
feature
of
groups themselves
is
that
they have absolute membership.
Either
one
is a
member
of a
group
or one is
not.
This
feature
can be
seen
in
combination with
that
of
leadership
and
authority.
The
leaders
of a
group
and
the
authorities
of a
group have
the
right
to
lead
and to
make decisions only
with
respect
to
members
of
that
group.
A
father
and
mother
can
make decisions concerning
their
own
chil-
dren,
but not the
children
of the
family
down
the
street.
A
plant manager
s
decisions
affect
the
people
who
work
in his or her
factory,
not an-
other
factory
across town.
Finally,
we can see all of
these patterns
in
terms
of a
larger pattern
of
legal levels.
At the
lower
legal levels,
we
have
the
family,
the
fac-
tory,
the
school, etc.
All of
these groups have
their
own
legal systems
and
their
own
laws.
But
these groups
are
also parts
of
larger groups.
All
of
them
may be
part
of the
group known
as the
membership
of the
city
of
Chicago,
for
example.
The
members
of the
city
of
Chicago
in
turn
are
members
of a
larger group,
the
state
of
Illinois.
Finally,
the
members
of the
state
of
Illinois
are
members
of the
larger group known
as the
United States
of
America. Each
of
these more
or
less
inclusive groups have their
own
legal sys-
tems
and
laws
that
apply
to all
members.
These
levels
of
inclusiveness
are
thus also legal levels,
for
the
legal decisions made
at one
level
affect
all
of the
levels below
it.
In
contemporary U.S. society, there
are nu-
merous
legal
levels.
There
are
also numerous
low
legal level groups
to
which
an
American citizen
may
belong, including
family,
church, school,
employment group, social club, etc. Between
the
family
legal level
and the top
legal level
of the
federal
government, there
are at
least
two
legal
levels,
the
municipal level
and the
state legal
level.
In
some places, there
is the
community
legal level, which
may
regulate such
things
as
building codes
and the
admission
of
children.
In
some places also,
the
county
or
parish,
an in-
termediate level between municipal
and
state
levels,
is of
some importance.
In
technologically primitive societies,
the
number
of
groups
to
which
one
belongs
is
usu-
ally
much
fewer,
although
the
number
of
legal
levels
may not
differ
greatly.
The
woodlands Cree
of
northeastern Canada,
for
example, tradition-
ally
had the
following groups
of
which
an
indi-
vidual
was a
member:
the
nuclear
family,
the
extended
family,
the
winter band,
and the
sum-
mer
band. Each
one of
these represents
a
sepa-
rate legal level.
However, some legal systems
can
exist
in a
society
in
conflict with
the
legal system that
is
authorized
by the
society's
central government.
For
example,
the
legal system that
the
mafia
uses
to
control
the
behavior
of its
members
is
often
in
conflict
with
the
laws
of the
United States.
Under
mafia
law,
for
instance,
it is
legal
for one
"made"
(or
full)
member
to
kill another "made"
member
under orders
from
the
appropriate
mafia
authorities; such
a
killing
is of
course illegal
un-
der
U.S.
law.
Thus,
one way in
which
an
unoffi-
cial
legal system
can
exist within
a
society
is for
that organization
to
create
its own
laws.
Another
way for
unofficial
law to
come
about
is for a
local legal system
to
continue
to
exist
even
after
a
national legal system
is
extended
to
cover
the
small society
that
gave
birth
to the
174
MULTIPLICITY
OF
LEGAL LEVELS
local system.
A
good example
of
this
is the
legal
systems
of
some
North
American Indian
peoples, which continue
to
exist
and
function
despite
the
imposition
of the
U.S.
and
Cana-
dian
federal legal systems.
In
such cases,
the in-
digenous legal systems
fulfill
social
and
cultural
needs
that
the
large national systems were
not
designed
to
fulfill.
Another example
of a
traditional legal sys-
tem
continuing
to
function despite
the
imposi-
tion
of a new
national legal system
can be
found
in
India.
There,
the
traditional
villagepanchayats
(not
to be
confused
with
the
Nyaya
Panchayats
[or
"justice
panchayats"]
developed
by the
fed-
eral
government
in
recent times)
still
work
to
resolve
disputes among members
of the
village
in
some rural areas.
Though
they
do not
enjoy
the
recognition
of the
federal government, they
are
known
to and are
tolerated
by
federal
offi-
cials,
including court
officials.
The
punch
ay
at
continues
because
in
many parts
of
India,
use of
the
official
courts
has not yet
become common.
It
also continues primarily
in
single-caste vil-
lages.
In
earlier times,
\hzpanchayats
of
mixed-
caste
villages were controlled
by the
higher
castes,
who
used their social position
to
intimi-
date
the
lower castes, especially
the
Harijans
(also
known
as the
low-caste people,
the
people
with-
out
caste,
or the
untouchables).
When
India
gained
its
independence,
the
government called
for
social equality
and the end of the
caste sys-
tem;
it
also
set
aside jobs
for
Harijans.
As a re-
sult,
the
relationships between members
of
different
castes became contentious,
and
those
in
the
lower castes became much less likely
to
submit
to the
insults
and
degradations
of the
upper
castes; thus, where upper castes controlled
the
panchayat,
people frequently turned
to the
Indian court system rather than
the
panchayat.
However,
in
many rural single-caste villages
(as
well
as in
some rural mixed-caste villages),
the
panchayat
continues.
Where
the
village
is
predominantly
Harijan,
and
people
of
upper castes later come
to
live
there,
the
panchayat,
composed
of
Harijans,
will
often
refuse
to
become involved
in a
dispute
be-
tween
a
Harijan
and an
upper-caste person,
es-
pecially
if the
upper-caste person aggressively
asserts
his
position using violence,
as was
com-
mon in
earlier times. Simply put,
the
Harijan
panchayat
in
such
a
situation would
fear
for its
members'
own
safety
if it
intervened.
In
some
other cases, though,
the
panchayat
will pursue
political means
and
either make
a
display
offeree
itself
on
behalf
of a
wronged
Harijan
or
suppli-
cate
itself
before
upper-caste antagonists
and
plead
for
mercy
on
behalf
of a
Harijan
man
whom
the
upper-caste
men
have been beating.
Overall,
however,
the
Harijan panchayat
is
largely
ineffective
in
dealing with aggressive
upper-caste people,
and for
this reason some
Harijan
villages have forbidden members
of
other castes
from
settling
in
their midst.
The
panchayat
is
composed
of
older, mar-
ried men,
and
employs primarily psychological
rather than physical sanctions; most
often,
the
offender
is
expected
to
confess
his
wrongs
and
then
is
lectured
and
cautioned
to
mend
his
ways.
Thus,
the
function
of
the
panchayat
is
primarily
restitutive
rather than punitive.
That
is, its in-
tent
is to
restore social relations
as
they existed
prior
to the
commission
of the
offense
rather
than
to
punish
the
offender;
this
is
especially
important
in
small villages,
in
which
all
mem-
bers
know
and
interact with each other
on a
daily
basis.
This
is
another reason
why the
panchayat
has
been replaced
by
Indian courts
in
urban cen-
ters.
In the
cities, there
is
less need
for
restitu-
tion, because
the
people involved will
frequently
have
little
need
to
work together cooperatively
in
the
future;
thus,
in the
Indian court system,
punishment
of the
offender
is
more likely
and
more
severe.
Though
the
panchayat
is
still alive
today,
its
numbers
and
relative
influence
are on
the
wane.
A
second important source
of
unofficial
law
within
a
larger society
is
discontent among vari-
ous
subgroups
of the
larger society with regard
175
MULTIPLICITY
OF
LEGAL LEVELS
to the way in
which
the
legal system
of the
larger
society
handles disputes.
If the
larger society
cannot control disputes
effectively,
small sub-
groups within
the
larger society will often
at-
tempt
to
control these disputes themselves. Such
was
the
case
in
rural west-central Tanzania
in
the
1980s. Tanzania
as a
whole
saw a
great
in-
crease
in
criminal activity during
the
1970s,
and
the
Tanzanian government proved unable
to
control
it. The
Nyamwezi
and
Sukuma peoples
of
west-central Tanzania responded
by
invent-
ing
their
own
legal system
to
control crime,
a
legal system whose laws were based upon their
own
traditional values
and
social organization.
This
system, which they brought
to
life
in the
1980s,
is
operated
by
groups
of
people known
as
Sungusungu;
each
Sungusungu
group normally
includes
all of the
people
of the
village that
the
group administers.
The
group
is led by a
chief
(ntemi),
a
chief's
assistant
(ntwale),
a
secretary
(katibu),
and a
chief commander
(kamanda
mkuu).
A
major role
of the
Sungusungu groups
is
to
retrieve stolen
cattle
and to
punish
the
thieves.
The
activities
of a
village's
Sungusungu
are
essentially secret, both
to
avoid attacks
by
the
thieves,
who are
willing
to die in the
com-
mission
of
thefts,
and to
avoid
the
notice
of the
Tanzanian authorities
who
would punish them
for
the
killing
of the
thieves.
The
Sungusungu
also
provides food
of
those
who
chase
the
thieves, since
the
pursuit
is
likely
to be
long
and
arduous.
Two
other
sources
of
trouble
that
the
Sungusungu
deals
with
are
adultery
by
wives
and
witchcraft.
In the
case
of
witchcraft,
the
witch
is
discovered
and fined. In the
case
of
adultery
by
wives,
the
main concern
of the
Sungusungu
is
to
prevent
the men
involved
from
fighting. The
Sungusungu
deals with this
by
tracking down
the
deserting
wife
and
returning
her to her
husband,
as
well
as fining the man for
whom
she
left
her
husband.
In the
case
of
adultery,
the
bulk
of the
fines go to the
husband;
in all
other types
of
cases,
all of the
fines imposed
go to the
Sungusungu.
The
Sukuma
and
Nyamwezi people
prefer
the
Sungusungu
to the
Tanzanian courts
for
disputes over adulterous wives because
the
Tanzanian courts were said
to be
unjustly
un-
predictable
in
their decisions.
The
Sungusungu
also returns girls
who
elope
to
their parents.
The
Sungusungu
further
tries
cases
of
ordi-
nary
disputes between members
of the
village.
After
a
complaint
has
been made
to one of the
officers
of the
Sungusungu,
the
alleged
offender
is
summoned before
the
Sungusungu commit-
tee. After making formulaic greetings,
the al-
leged
offender
is
persuaded
to
confess
his or her
wrongs.
Then,
the
accused
offers
to pay a fine.
His or her first
offer
is
always
too
small
for the
gravity
of the
offense,
but he or she
gradually
increases
the
offer
until
one at
last meets
with
the
standard used
by the
Sungusungu commit-
tee, which then applauds
to
show
its
approval
of
the
appropriate
offer.
This
method
has the ad-
vantage that
the
guilty cannot readily complain
to the
federal authorities, since
he or she has
participated
in the
determination
of his or her
own
guilt
and its
punishment.
The
individual
who
refuses
to
admit guilt,
or who
admits guilt
but
does
not pay a fine, is
usually
ostracized.
A
further inducement
to ad-
mit
guilt
and to pay fines is the
ostracism
of the
guilty
party's
entire household
as
well. Ostra-
cism
in
these societies means that
the
members
of the
household
may
expect
no
assistance
from
the
other members
of the
village.
The
entire
membership
of the
village works
together
to
ensure
that
the
ostracism
is
complete; those
who
do
not
ostracize
the
guilty
may
themselves
re-
ceive
punishment. Members
of the
village also
assist
the
Sungusungu
by
reporting serious dis-
putes
to the
officers
of the
Sungusungu;
failure
to do so is
noted
and is
taken into account when
the
person involved
is
brought before
the
Sungusungu
on a
charge
of
improper behavior.
People
who do not
take part
in any
Sungusungu-
ordered activities, such
as
searching
for a
lost
child,
are fined.
176
MULTIPLICITY
OF
LEGAL LEVELS
See
also LEGAL ANTHROPOLOGY;
MISPRISION.
Pospisil, Leopold. (1974
[1971])
Anthropology
of
Law:
A
Comparative
Theory.
Bukurura,
Sufian
Hemed. (1994)
"The
Main- Vincentnathan,
S.
George. (1992) "The Social
tenance
of
Order
in
Rural Tanzania:
The
Construction
of
Order
and
Disorder
in Two
Case
of the
Sungusungu."
Journal
of
Legal
South Indian
Communities."
Journal
of
Le-
Pluralism
and
Unofficial
Law
34:1—29.
gal
Pluralism
and
Unofficial
Law
32:65—102.
177
NATURAL
LAW
Natural
Law may be de-
fined
as law
that agrees
with
human nature
and
that therefore
is
essential
for
social peace
and
happiness;
a
knowledge
of
Natural
Law is de-
rived
by
pure reason. Natural
Law is
thought
of
as
a
group
of
principles belonging
to the
world
of
natural objects
that,
if
fully
implemented
by
man,
would cause
the
world
to
exist
in a
state
of
universal
harmony. Theorists
of
Natural
Law
believe
that
human nature
is the
same every-
where,
and
that Natural
Law is the
same
for ev-
eryone.
They
also believe
that
Natural
Law is a
priori,
independent
of
culture, time,
and
space,
natural
to
mankind
and
common
to all
men.
Natural
Law may be
thought
of as a
moral phi-
losophy; actual laws,
of
course,
can
never com-
pletely conform
to
Natural Law, though Natural
Law is
often
used
in the
formulation
of
actual
laws
and
rules. Natural
Law is an
invention
of
the
philosophical traditions
of
European culture,
and
its
basic tenets
had
their origin
in
ancient
Greece.
Since
Natural
Law is a
matter
of
morality
and
philosophy,
and
since each culture
has its
Charles-Louis
de
Secondat,
Baron
de La
Brede
et de
Montesquieu
(1689-1755)
own
ideas about morality
and
moral philosophy,
it
should come
as no
surprise
that
there
can be
no one
Natural Law. Each culture
has
different
ideas
about what
is
moral behavior
and
what
is
not. Therefore,
the
idea
that
there
is one set of
morally correct laws (Natural Law)
for all of
humankind
is
absurd.
In
terms
of
morality,
hu-
man
nature
is not
everywhere
the
same,
an
idea
first
broached
by the
French social thinker
Montesquieu,
who
lived
from
1689
to
1755.
A
good example
of
this
is can be had by
com-
paring
the
treatment
of
patricide
in our
society
and
in
pre-Communist
China.
By the
moral
standards
of our
society,
the
killing
of a man by
his son is
considered
as
reprehensible
as the
kill-
ing of a man by his
father.
In
some cases,
the
killing
of a man by his son is
considered less rep-
rehensible than
the
reverse;
for
example,
in
cases
in
which
the
father
has
been abusing
his
son,
179
N
NATURAL
LAW
courts
have
often
been lenient.
In
pre-Commu-
nist China,
on the
other hand,
the
killing
of a
man
by his son was
considered
one of the
most
reprehensible
of
acts,
no
matter what
the
cir-
cumstances.
Even
if the
father abused
his
son,
patricide
was
harshly punished
and
there were
no
grounds
for
leniency.
On the
other hand,
there were many
justifiable
reasons
for a man to
kill
his son
with impunity.
The
Chinese,
of
course,
considered their laws
in
this regard per-
fectly
"natural,"
and the
fact
that people
in
United States society
do not is the
reason that
there
is no
such thing
as a
truly natural law.
See
also JUSTICE; LEGAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Gierke,
Otto
von. (1957
[1934])
Natural
Law
and
the
Theory
of
Society:
1500
to
1800.
Grotius,
Hugo.
(1925
[1625])
De
Jure
Belli
ac
Pads
Libri
Tres.
Translated
by
Francis
W.
Kelsey.
Montesquieu,
C. L. J. de
Secondat, Baron
de la
Brede
et de.
(1750)
De
Vesprit
des
lois.
Vols.
I,
II.
Pospisil, Leopold. (1974
[1971])
Anthropology
of
Law:
A
Comparative
Theory.
Pufendorf,
Samuel von. (1927
[1682])
De
Officio
Hominus
et
Civisjuxta
Legem
Naturalem
Libri
Duo.
Translated
by
Frank Gardner Moore.
Seidler, Michael. (1990)
Samuel
Pufendorf
s
On
the
Natural
State
of
Men.
Translated
and an-
notated
by
Michael Seidler.
Whewell,
William.
(1853)
Grotius
on
War
and
Peace.
Vol.
I.
180
OATH
An
oath
is a
solemn
at-
testation
to the
truth
of
statements uttered.
It is
often
used
in
legal proceedings
to
help
the
legal
authority discover
the
true
facts
of a
case.
It is
common
for
oath-takers
to
call
for
supernatural
sanctions
to
befall
them
if
they tell falsehoods.
In
cultures where people believe strongly
in the
power
of the
supernatural
to
influence
the
lives
of
the
living, oaths
can be an
important
way of
encouraging
compliance
and
settling disputes.
Oaths
are
used
for a
variety
of
purposes
and in a
variety
of
contexts.
In the
United States, they
are
used
to
encourage witnesses
to
tell
the
truth
in
judicial proceedings,
to
encourage compliance
and
allegiance among members
of
restricted
membership organizations such
as
fraternal
or-
ganizations
and the
military,
and to
hold public
officials
to
high standards
of
conduct. Elsewhere,
oaths
are
often
used
in
non-Western cultures
to
settle disputes
and to
maintain social order.
A
cross-cultural survey
of
oaths used
to as-
certain
the
truth
in 150
cultures shows that oaths
are
used
in 37
percent
of
cultures.
In 19
percent
oaths alone
are
used, while
in 18
percent
both
ordeals
and
oaths
are
used
to
settle disputes.
Unlike
ordeals, which
are not
distributed
around
the
world, oaths
are
used
by
cultures
in
all
regions.
Oaths
are
most commonly used
to
settle dis-
putes
in
which members
of the
community can-
not
easily decide which party
is
telling
the
truth.
For
example, among
the
Wolof
andTiv
of
West
Africa,
a
persons willingness
to
take
an
oath
is
interpreted
as a
sign
that
he is
telling
the
truth
while resistance
is a
sign that
he is not
telling
the
truth.
The
dispute
is
then likely
to be re-
solved
in
favor
of the
oath-taker.
The
Crow
In-
dians
of the
Great
Plains
of the
United States
used oaths when there were disputes over count-
ing
coup.
In
that society, male warriors placed
great positive value
on
counting coup,
or
touch-
ing the
body
of an
enemy.
The one who
touched
the
enemy
first
enjoyed
much greater prestige
than anyone
who
counted coup
on
that body
afterwards.
Thus,
it
sometimes happened that
more
than
one
person claimed
to be the first man
to
count coup
on any
particular enemy.
In
this
event,
the two
warriors would each
put a
knife
in
his
mouth, point
the
knife
in the
direction
of
the
sun,
and say a
formula that asked
the sun to
witness
the
oath
and
called
for the
death
of the
warrior
who
lied.
The first of the two men to
suffer
a
significant
injury
was
believed
by the
rest
of the
group
to be the
imposter,
and the ac-
colades would
go to the
other man.
In the
soci-
ety of the
Ostyak,
in
Siberia,
the
oath-taker
swears
the
truth
of his
statements
by
saying, over
a
bear's
nose,
"may
a
bear
eat me if I
tell
a
lie."
If
the
oath-taker
is
later killed
by a
bear
or in an
accident, this
is
believed
to be
proof that
he had
not
told
the
truth.
Oaths
are
effective
only when people
are
generally
truthful
and
when they believe that
the
supernatural will harm them
if
they
lie
under
oath.
It is, of
course,
the
belief that they will
be
punished
for
lying that
causes
them
to be
truth-
ful.
Thus,
it is not
surprising that societies that
rely
on
oaths
are
ones
in
which children
are
181
O
OATH
Lt.
Col. Oliver North,
United
States
Marine
Corps,
raises
his
right hand
and
swears
an
oath
to
tell
the
truth
before
the
House
and
Senate
Iran-Contra
Committee
of
the
U.S.
Congress.
Such
oaths
to
elicit
the
truth
are
used
in 3
7percent
of
150
cultures
surveyed.
reared
to be
responsible,
an
emphasis
that
likely
produces adults
who are
truthful. Additionally,
people
in
societies with oaths generally believe
strongly
in a
high
God and
they share
the
belief
that
those
who lie
while under oath will
be
pun-
ished.
For
example,
the
Crow Indians believed
that those
who
lied would
be
cursed
and
that
they
or
their children would
be
punished.
As
with ordeals,
it
seems that oaths occur mainly
in
societies
where
the
political leadership
is
weak
and the
group
is
fragmented
into
a
number
of
different
subgroups, usually kinship groups such
as
lineages
or
clans.
In
these cultures, oaths
al-
low the
weak leadership
to
maintain control
by
appealing
to a
higher authority
in
judicial
decision making.
Oaths
are
also used commonly across cul-
tures
by the
state
as a
means
of
ensuring loyalty
among citizens.
For
example,
in
most nations
today,
naturalized citizens
are
required
to
take
an
oath
of
allegiance
to
their
new
nation. Simi-
larly,
oaths
are
commonly required
for
individu-
als
joining various government
or
private
organizations,
as
with
the
following oath
re-
quired
of
individuals
who
join
the
Sudanese State
Security
Bureau:
I
being apppointed
an
active member
in the
State Security
Bu-
reau
( )
swear
by
Almighty
God
(or
solemnly
affirm)
that
my
sincerity
and
loyalty shall
be to the
Democratic
Republic
182