Law and Morality: The Decisive Oath as a Means of Resolving Legal Disputes

Metin M. CoÅŸgel and Thomas J. Miceli ()
Additional contact information
Metin M. CoÅŸgel: Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
Thomas J. Miceli: Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Metin Cosgel ()

Journal of Economics, Management and Religion (JEMAR), 2025, vol. 06, issue 01, 1-20

Abstract: How does a society resolve legal disputes lacking evidence? Although such cases would typically be dismissed by modern courts, an interesting but little-known alternative element observed in some legal systems is the option to request a decisive oath in a lawsuit. Distinct from ordinary (testimonial) oaths that are routinely administered to witnesses at trial with the aim of eliciting only truthful testimony, a decisive oath can end a lawsuit in cases where the plaintiff has no evidence. We argue that the oath option may improve on burden-of-proof rules because standard theory overlooks the possibility that some defendants will truthfully admit their guilt after having professed an oath to be truthful. The reason is that people with strong religious or moral beliefs have internalised an ethic of honesty that overrides material consequences. We show that when the fraction of such people is large enough, the oath option achieves a more accurate resolution of disputes than burden-of-proof rules. Evidence from the Ottoman courts in Istanbul during the 16th and 17th centuries supports the argument regarding the positive relationship between religiosity and the use of the decisive oath for dispute resolution. The viability of the decisive oath declined in recent centuries, despite remaining ‘on the books’ in some countries. We suggest that its global demise can be attributed to rising intellectual opposition, increasing complexity of laws and/or legal disputes, falling cost of gathering evidence, and a general trend toward the separation of religion and state.

Keywords: Morality; law; decisive oath; dispute resolution; legal procedure; litigation; settlement; trial; evidence; lying (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D91 K10 K20 K40 N45 P48 Z12 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2737436X25400011
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wsi:jemarx:v:06:y:2025:i:01:n:s2737436x25400011

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

DOI: 10.1142/S2737436X25400011

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Economics, Management and Religion (JEMAR) is currently edited by Robert M. Sauer

More articles in Journal of Economics, Management and Religion (JEMAR) from World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Tai Tone Lim ().