The original, entwined nature of God and the courtroom manifests in multiple ways in modern United States trial proceedings, from the Rules of Evidence to the oath witnesses take prior to testifying. Nowadays, the separation of church and state has effectively removed religion from the courtroom, but its presence can still be observed in language and tradition.  In Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black’s majority opinion stated, “[States cannot] force [anyone] to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” Adjusting to fit the judgment in Everson, Federal Rule 603 now states: “Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience”. In such cases where an oath cannot be given because of personal beliefs, an affirmation—public declaration and guarantee of truthfulness made in public under the penalty of perjury—can be made. The only difference between an oath and an affirmation is the lack of invoking a divine authority in the affirmation.
Legally, oaths and affirmations are viewed as equivalent and incur the same punishment if false sworn testimony—perjury—is given. Anyone who swears an oath to tell the truth must tell the truth, or at least what he or she believes to be true. Any statement made during sworn testimony the testifier knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, can be penalized as perjury with either a fine, imprisonment, or some combination therein. In other words, in the eyes of the law, lying under oath is a serious and punishable offense. 
Criminal trials occur because of the commission of a transgression of codified law. Researchers have examined both how and why people transgress. For ethical reasons, in many laboratory studies, the dishonest behavior takes the form of cheating—a behavior which breaks a rule with the intent to gain an unfair advantage. In order to provide a theoretical background for the proposed paradigm, this section reviews previous theories and research examining participants’ behavior when given the opportunity to behave dishonestly. 
To best illustrate the combination of theories employed, the following example will be developed through the ensuing literature review as to why an individual may choose to engage in dishonest behavior. Imagine that Robin can no longer afford medication that makes his life more comfortable but is not necessary for him to live an average life. An opportunity to steal from someone who is insured for the loss arises, and Robin must decide how to act.
Rational Crime Theory posits that transgressors engage in a cost-benefit analysis prior to the commission of a dishonest act. Similarly, low external cost with relatively higher benefits is among the six driving factors of Mazar and Ariely’s General Model of Dishonest Behavior. If the external rewards for being dishonest outweigh the rewards for being honest, there is a higher likelihood that the individual behaves dishonestly. In Robin’s case, he would proceed with the theft if the benefits of the medicine outweigh the potential consequences. 
