When is the wearing of a 'burka' innopropriate ?

[conlang returns]

As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.

It does happen when the witness is unavailable.

Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved

Point being?  We do not live in an ideal world full of ideal people.  Ideally, of course we could tell if a person were lying just by looking at them.  Ideally, perhaps people wouldn't lie at all.  But it's no use wandering off into fantasy land.  People may personally feel more comfortable with a witness they can see and hear.  They may congratulate themselves on their great judgement of when someone is lying.  But the sad reality is that truth-sense only exists in Frank Herbert novels.  Verbal testimony offers an illusion of being harder to fool, nothing more.

So let's just enter all the facts into a computer and let it make the decisions.

Like it or not scientific or not a lot of people make decisions based on how they feel about the way people say things and act while doing so.  I am a contractor and if someone makes me uneasy I will not work for them it might not be 'truth-sense' but it has served me well over the years so far in the 11 years I have been in business I have only been stiffed for $500.  I feel in court it will only hurt your case  wearing a burka if you don't care about that go right ahead and do it.

Believe it or not, I've never actually worn a burka. 

You're forgetting the two other components of the court system: the judge and the attorneys.  The judge admits evidence according to the law, and decides how the conclusion of the jury fits in with the law.  The attorneys submit evidence, including testimony, and cross examine witnesses.  The jury typically does none of those things.  Their job is to examine the evidence presented and the case that each attorney presents, and decide who has the better case.  Juries are not lawyers and have not been trained to cross-examine witnesses and poke holes in stories.  Some of them may certainly have those abilities, but court system is not designed to rely on them having them.  I see no reason why a piece of cloth could impair a savvy lawyer who has more than likely seen a Muslim woman at least once before. 

[conlang returns]

There are also nearly one million people in the UK who are deaf and rely on sign language and lip reading in order to communicate. 

If a person relies on sign language rather than lip reading, then at least some of the time it's because they have to.  Very little information about what you are saying actually ends up on the lips, and those who lip read must supplement that information with what little hearing they have.  In either case, interpreters and written transcripts make the situation much more accessible than merely stripping some poor woman of her religious garb. 

[Parts]

As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.

It does happen when the witness is unavailable.

Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved

Point being?  We do not live in an ideal world full of ideal people.  Ideally, of course we could tell if a person were lying just by looking at them.  Ideally, perhaps people wouldn't lie at all.  But it's no use wandering off into fantasy land.  People may personally feel more comfortable with a witness they can see and hear.  They may congratulate themselves on their great judgement of when someone is lying.  But the sad reality is that truth-sense only exists in Frank Herbert novels.  Verbal testimony offers an illusion of being harder to fool, nothing more.

So let's just enter all the facts into a computer and let it make the decisions.

Like it or not scientific or not a lot of people make decisions based on how they feel about the way people say things and act while doing so.  I am a contractor and if someone makes me uneasy I will not work for them it might not be 'truth-sense' but it has served me well over the years so far in the 11 years I have been in business I have only been stiffed for $500.  I feel in court it will only hurt your case  wearing a burka if you don't care about that go right ahead and do it.

Believe it or not, I've never actually worn a burka. 

You're forgetting the two other components of the court system: the judge and the attorneys.  The judge admits evidence according to the law, and decides how the conclusion of the jury fits in with the law.  The attorneys submit evidence, including testimony, and cross examine witnesses.  The jury typically does none of those things.  Their job is to examine the evidence presented and the case that each attorney presents, and decide who has the better case.  Juries are not lawyers and have not been trained to cross-examine witnesses and poke holes in stories.  Some of them may certainly have those abilities, but court system is not designed to rely on them having them.  I see no reason why a piece of cloth could impair a savvy lawyer who has more than likely seen a Muslim woman at least once before.

I never thought that you had worn one  the 'you' was used more in a general sense.

I think you are deluding yourself if you think how witnesses appear and act has no influence on the jury.  Judges can give instructions and lawyers can do their best but jurors will still consider what they saw.  My view it only hurts the persons case and I am fairly sure I am not alone in my feelings.

[conlang returns]

I never thought that you had worn one  the 'you' was used more in a general sense.

I think you are deluding yourself if you think how witnesses appear and act has no influence on the jury.  Judges can give instructions and lawyers can do their best but jurors will still consider what they saw.  My view it only hurts the persons case and I am fairly sure I am not alone in my feelings.

When did I say appearance did not affect juries' perception?  My point has been that the jury should not be attempting this anyway.  Of course I'm aware that not everyone does what they are supposed to. 

[MLA]

As to body language in court if it didn't matter they could just give the jurors transcripts of the testimony after the fact but somehow I just don't see that happening.

It does happen when the witness is unavailable.

Yes but it is not common practice and objections are usually involved

Point being?  We do not live in an ideal world full of ideal people.  Ideally, of course we could tell if a person were lying just by looking at them.  Ideally, perhaps people wouldn't lie at all.  But it's no use wandering off into fantasy land.  People may personally feel more comfortable with a witness they can see and hear.  They may congratulate themselves on their great judgement of when someone is lying.  But the sad reality is that truth-sense only exists in Frank Herbert novels.  Verbal testimony offers an illusion of being harder to fool, nothing more.

So let's just enter all the facts into a computer and let it make the decisions.

Like it or not scientific or not a lot of people make decisions based on how they feel about the way people say things and act while doing so.  I am a contractor and if someone makes me uneasy I will not work for them it might not be 'truth-sense' but it has served me well over the years so far in the 11 years I have been in business I have only been stiffed for $500.  I feel in court it will only hurt your case  wearing a burka if you don't care about that go right ahead and do it.

Believe it or not, I've never actually worn a burka. 

You're forgetting the two other components of the court system: the judge and the attorneys.  The judge admits evidence according to the law, and decides how the conclusion of the jury fits in with the law.  The attorneys submit evidence, including testimony, and cross examine witnesses.  The jury typically does none of those things.  Their job is to examine the evidence presented and the case that each attorney presents, and decide who has the better case.  Juries are not lawyers and have not been trained to cross-examine witnesses and poke holes in stories.  Some of them may certainly have those abilities, but court system is not designed to rely on them having them.  I see no reason why a piece of cloth could impair a savvy lawyer who has more than likely seen a Muslim woman at least once before.

I don't know anything about the British system, but in the US the defendant is never required to take the stand to testify, or even to show up in the court room.  So what is the difference between not showing up at all, and showing up in a burkha?  That being said, if the defendant does testify the prosecution gets to cross-examine for the purpose of disproving the testimony, in which case I would think the ability to look at the accused is important.

[Adam]

race traitors.

Girls having sex with "enrichers".

[conlang returns]

I don't know anything about the British system, but in the US the defendant is never required to take the stand to testify, or even to show up in the court room.  So what is the difference between not showing up at all, and showing up in a burkha?  That being said, if the defendant does testify the prosecution gets to cross-examine for the purpose of disproving the testimony, in which case I would think the ability to look at the accused is important.

I've been assuming all along that the British system takes the basic form of the adversarial system we can usually expect here in the states.

I'll allow that personal presence allows a cross examination, or at least makes it easier, and that that might yield information useful to justice.  But I'm not convinced body language or facial expression is useful.  I find it extremely unlikely that someone who would be willing to risk charges of perjury would have no experience with lying effectively. 

[Lestat]

'Enrichers', lit?

What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**

**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**


I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.

[Parts]

I never thought that you had worn one  the 'you' was used more in a general sense.

I think you are deluding yourself if you think how witnesses appear and act has no influence on the jury.  Judges can give instructions and lawyers can do their best but jurors will still consider what they saw.  My view it only hurts the persons case and I am fairly sure I am not alone in my feelings.

When did I say appearance did not affect juries' perception?  My point has been that the jury should not be attempting this anyway.  Of course I'm aware that not everyone does what they are supposed to.

Here you go straight from New Jersey Courts information for jurors page.   Link

Each juror should pay close attention to the witness who is testifying, both to hear what the witness says and to watch the witness's manner and actions. In evaluating a witness's testimony a juror may consider the witness's credibility and ultimately decide how much weight the testimony deserves.

And another  form the US Embassy's site, of all places on the role of the witness
Link

Witnesses are instructed to sit erect in the witness box and to swivel their bodies toward the jurors so that the jury may see their face and body language during their response. This is important no matter whether the case is being heard by a judge or a jury, but it is exponentially important when jurors — men and women from all walks of everyday life — are going to be reaching a verdict.

[RageBeoulve]

'Enrichers', lit?

What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**

**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**


I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.

Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.

[Semicolon]

'Enrichers', lit?

What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**

**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**


I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.

Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.

Genocide due to religious affiliation?

[RageBeoulve]

'Enrichers', lit?

What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**

**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**


I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.

Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.

Genocide due to religious affiliation?

Yeah, I know. You don't have to KILL someone to make your point. I myself am a pretty fiery guy, but that's going a bit too far.

[Parts]

'Enrichers', lit?

What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**

**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**


I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.

Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.

Genocide due to religious affiliation?

Yeah, I know. You don't have to KILL someone to make your point. I myself am a pretty fiery guy, but that's going a bit too far.

What if your point was that pushing someone off a 1000 foot cliff would kill them

[Adam]

'Enrichers', lit?

What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**

**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**


I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.

Well mass murder is not really a good solution for anything dude, but you guys should have the right to do something at least.

Genocide due to religious affiliation?

And race, it seems

[TheoK]

'Enrichers', lit?

What is an enricher? the other guilty party in cases of miscegenation where mudslims are guilty of the practice? **as of course one cannot have miscegenation without two parties bearing the guilt of their wrongdoing.**

**(minimum...unless michael jackson counts if he ever tossed his own salad haha)**


I am to be quite frank, sick and tired of it, the way that the UK govt seems hellbent on getting our (NOT *theirs*, OUR!)
citizens killed in atrocities, and bending over backwards to slobber and fawn at the feet of allah, muhammid and their disgusting pack of cultists. This needs to stop. And it the government will not do so, then the private citizenry need to band together to kick them out of the country. Every last single one of them. Or failing kicking them out, WIPING them out.

It's kind of a pun. Swedish politicians are seriously saying that immigrants are "enriching" the Swedish society. It seems like they love Islam, criminals and illiterates. They don't have to live among them themselves, of course.