researcher have found that defendant who refuse to swear an oath to God are more likely to be found guilty by juryman with religious beliefs . The study asks whether it is meter for this legal ritual to be updated .

When giving evidence in court in countries like Britain , Ireland , Australia , and the USA , a attestor will be asked whether they wish to take an oath or to swear that their statements are truthful . The former represents a religious commitment to be honest while the latter , an affirmation , is a lay edition of this same pledge – it just does n’t mention the Almighty or any othersupernaturalentity .

In both case , the nature of the declaration is meant to demonstrate a public commitment to truthfulness , based on value that are intended to be regale equally , at least in term of the law . However , enquiry led by a team from Royal Holloway , University of London , suggests this is not always the case .

The idea that atheists and non - religious individuals are somehow morally wary is plebeian across the world and is profoundly ingrained in various societies . In Britain , 20 pct of asurveyedpopulation explicitly agree that “ ethics is impossible without the belief in God ” ; the number was even higher in the US , with 44 percent of Americans express agreement . According to a cross - national sketch bring out in2017 , distrust in atheist was so pervasive that it even extended to other non - worshipper . The subject area plant that the overwhelming influence of religion on moral prejudice entrenched anti - atheistical ideas , even among non - believer in secular societies .

The signification of this moral suspicion against non - believers has implications in effectual pattern , as it could lead to bias , despite claims that such systems operate dispassionately . This is what the team from Royal Holloway seek to look into . They did so by conduct research in stages . In the first two stage , the squad found that people link up religious expletive with convincing testimonies . They also found that spiritual soul were biased against defendant who chose a secular toast .

“ The result of our first two studies ” , the source explain “ designate that court witnesses who swear an oath are , on intermediate , much more spiritual than those who prefer to affirm ; that witnesses who swear are perceive as much more religious than those who swear ; that people associate choice of the oath with credible testimony ; and crucially , that participant , peculiarly religious believer and affiliates , discriminate against supposed defendant who take the laic assertion . ”

However , they did state that the “ latter effect ” is small and does not necessarily entail that taking the statement will have a significant impingement on all outcomes . However , in heavily contested pillow slip , this ingrained prejudice could be a constituent that tips the balance .

The squad then performed a follow - up study of over 1,800 online player who were take to watch videos of a mock tryout where a man was accused of robbery . One of the videos involved the defendant taking a spiritual oath before giving grounds , while pull in an statement in the other . The participants were asked to roleplay as role player - jurors and were also asked to either swear an curse or affirm that they would try out the defendant based on grounds and in good organized religion .

Overall , the suspect was not line up guiltier when pick out to swan rather than to trust , and the mock - jurors ' belief in God did not seem to affect this . However , those jurors who themselves avow an swearing were prejudiced against the affirming suspect .

These outcome could have actual - world logical implication for court trials .

" If study the oath is seen as a sign of credibleness , this could lead to favouritism against suspect who are not willing to swear by God ” , Professor Ryan McKay , from the Department of Psychology at Royal Holloway , University of London , say in astatement .

" An earlier proposal to get rid of the oath in England and Wales was defeated when opponents argued that the oath strengthen the value of witnesses ' evidence . This is ironic , as it seems to recognise that depone an oath may give an advantage in court . "

Dr. Will Gervais , from Brunel University London , who collaborated on the studies , state , " The biases we report are subtle , but could potentially slant the balance in cases that could go either direction . "

The charity Humanists UK cut astatementabout the enquiry , calling for changes in the criminal justice system . " give that prejudice ground on faith or belief is still too plebeian in the UK today , it would be sound to reform the oath and affirmation organisation to one that does n’t reveal this information to jurors , " order Richy Thompson , Director of Public Affairs and Policy .

The preconception against atheists and non - believers is far - reaching , but there is no grounds to show they are any less moral than their religious match . Interestingly , it seems atheist are more probable to judge to ethical motive based on theconsequencesof specific actions , while religious people tend to focus on values that support group cohesion . Ultimately , not conceive in God has no impact on whether you are a moral or immoral mortal .

The study is published in theBritish Journal of Psychology .