Crosswords2 mins ago
Should She Be Made To Remove Her Burkha?
155 Answers
http://
/// The woman, from Hackney, east London, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, ///
Surely not for legal reasons but because she is wearing that blooming Burkha?
/// The woman, from Hackney, east London, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, ///
Surely not for legal reasons but because she is wearing that blooming Burkha?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
FRED unless you are an expert, how can you know what body language reveals? Unless you are an expert, how can you tell if one movement or expression contradicts another? In the Judge's summing up, are references made to the accused's body language? I am not aware that in the normal course of events a person's body language is used to determine guilt or innocence and if it came out that a juror reached a decision based upon body language, do you not think the verdict would be challenged?
Credible witness n. a witness whose testimony is more than likely to be true based on his/her experience, knowledge, training and appearance of honesty and forthrightness, as well as common human experience. This is subjective in that the trier of fact (judge or jury) may be influenced by the demeanor of the witness or other factors.
it's interesting that the tone on the previous thread was one of general acceptance that the judge is right to uphold this particular principle of law.
yet in this thread there is more of contributors urging the "work around" of ID by DNA, iris scan or examination by persons deemed religiously acceptable, and even suggesting that the judge is displaying an innate lasciviousness in requiring the defendant to uncover herself. Interesting.
yet in this thread there is more of contributors urging the "work around" of ID by DNA, iris scan or examination by persons deemed religiously acceptable, and even suggesting that the judge is displaying an innate lasciviousness in requiring the defendant to uncover herself. Interesting.
The issue here does not to be about the upholding of any 'law'
The judge, apparently, is making a point about practicality, or trust. One which seems could be addressed without the lady removing her burqa if she wishes not to.
I suspect the 'lascivious' thing was what is known in the trade as a 'light hearted remark' but I could be wrong
The judge, apparently, is making a point about practicality, or trust. One which seems could be addressed without the lady removing her burqa if she wishes not to.
I suspect the 'lascivious' thing was what is known in the trade as a 'light hearted remark' but I could be wrong
“Oh i beg your pardon, i thought the law was dictated by hard raw evidence and not the guessings of a few would be arm chair pyschologists”
I don’t know if you have much knowledge of criminal trials, Kramer, but your simplistic view is not usually the case. The fact that a defendant has pleaded not guilty usually indicates that he disputes the prosecution’s version of events and he very often puts forward a version of his own. Both of these may be equally plausible, though one is usually closer to the truth than the other and are often accompanied by the “hard raw evidence” you mention. It is the job of the jury (or bench of Magistrates if the trial takes place in the lower court) to determine which of the two versions (i.e. which evidence) they prefer over the other.
It is not only the content of the evidence but the way it is delivered. In a Magistrates Court, the Bench, unlike a jury, has to give reasons in open court for their findings when delivering their verdict. If you listen to such pronouncements you will hear terms such as “we found Mr X’s evidence unconvincing”, or “we found Miss Y to be confident and consistent when giving her evidence”. Those findings are not based on the words alone (or they may as well be read to the court) but also take into consideration demeanour and, yes, body language. The jury are not “experts” in body language or anything else - that’s the very reason they are chosen at random. They are being asked to assess evidence as lay people and believe it or not many people can determine a lot from watching somebody speak or from their reactions to things said by others.
The suggestion that because blind people are permitted to undertake jury duty (and sit as Magistrates) is not sufficient to show that no sight is needed amongst jurors or Magistrates as a whole. If a jury were to be made up of twelve blind people (or a Bench of three Magistrates all be blind) I’m quite sure some objection would be made which would prevent the trial proceeding. It is true that blind people may bring qualities to a panel which sighted people do not possess, but without some element of sight such a panel is unlikely to be effective.
I don’t know if you have much knowledge of criminal trials, Kramer, but your simplistic view is not usually the case. The fact that a defendant has pleaded not guilty usually indicates that he disputes the prosecution’s version of events and he very often puts forward a version of his own. Both of these may be equally plausible, though one is usually closer to the truth than the other and are often accompanied by the “hard raw evidence” you mention. It is the job of the jury (or bench of Magistrates if the trial takes place in the lower court) to determine which of the two versions (i.e. which evidence) they prefer over the other.
It is not only the content of the evidence but the way it is delivered. In a Magistrates Court, the Bench, unlike a jury, has to give reasons in open court for their findings when delivering their verdict. If you listen to such pronouncements you will hear terms such as “we found Mr X’s evidence unconvincing”, or “we found Miss Y to be confident and consistent when giving her evidence”. Those findings are not based on the words alone (or they may as well be read to the court) but also take into consideration demeanour and, yes, body language. The jury are not “experts” in body language or anything else - that’s the very reason they are chosen at random. They are being asked to assess evidence as lay people and believe it or not many people can determine a lot from watching somebody speak or from their reactions to things said by others.
The suggestion that because blind people are permitted to undertake jury duty (and sit as Magistrates) is not sufficient to show that no sight is needed amongst jurors or Magistrates as a whole. If a jury were to be made up of twelve blind people (or a Bench of three Magistrates all be blind) I’m quite sure some objection would be made which would prevent the trial proceeding. It is true that blind people may bring qualities to a panel which sighted people do not possess, but without some element of sight such a panel is unlikely to be effective.
NEW JUDGE folk may believe they can determine things from someone's behaviour but does that make it correct? There is a widely held belief that right-handed and left-handed folk look to a particular side if telling a lie but that belief is false. If a witness scratches his nose or pulls on his ear when he answers a question or he fiddles with his hair or an ear-ring, are they signs of falsehood? A person may appear to be confident because they believe what they are saying is correct but again, that does not make it correct. Can you point to any examples where a judge or magistrate has said that a person's body language has influenced their verdict or guidance to a jury?
As was demonstrated on a TV show some years back*, juries have a tendency to be swayed in their decision by the defendent's looks. so there's a powerful argument for the either the jury or the defendent to be hidden behind a screen.
Here's a website if you want the to know more.
http://
* pre iPlayer and probably ITV anyway.
Here's a website if you want the to know more.
http://
* pre iPlayer and probably ITV anyway.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.