Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not only racial. It also is an issue for education level, culture, socio-economic status,being a recent immigrant, or having a speech impediment.
As it turns out, Rachel Jeantel had a speech impediment as well as speaking in a way that was unfamiliar to at least one of the Zimmerman jurors. To me, this should not have discredited her testimony. Other factors yes, but not the WAY she spoke.
Are we going to put more value into what a rich, well-spoken individual says than what a poor, inarticulate individual says? I think this is a really important question. Being rich and well-spoken doesn't necessarily make you truthful, and vice-versa.
It wasn't racial.
Bottom line, it was a dumb girl who wasn't articulate enough to lie well.
When your vocabulary is very limited...these things happen.
Not to mention, she wanted to be doing ANYTHING BUT helping seek justice for her dead friend.
I will agree that this probably wasn't racial. Many people think Southerners are less intelligent because of their accent no matter what race. If you talk like the Queen of England, people are gonna think that you are well educated and telling the truth. If you talk like Larry the Cable Guy, people are going to assume you don't know too much.
I think a jury can like or not like a particular witness for so many different reasons. The way they look, the way they dress; their overall demeanor; and, yes, the way they talk.
All those things can influence the impression a jury has of a witness AND their credibility or lack thereof.
I will agree that this probably wasn't racial. Many people think Southerners are less intelligent because of their accent no matter what race. If you talk like the Queen of England, people are gonna think that you are well educated and telling the truth. If you talk like Larry the Cable Guy, people are going to assume you don't know too much.
But I think that is so wrong. Again, some of the most crooked, deceitful people, like our members of Congress are extremely well-spoken. Lawyers are PAID to lie; they are well-spoken but I wouldn't believe much of what comes out of any lawyer's mouth.
Do you see what I mean? Somehow, as a society we have come to equate being educated and well-spoken with being credible and truthful, when often, I think it's just the opposite! Well-spoken, intelligent people know how to twist their words around to lie without the appearance of lying, like the financiers on Wall St. who sold bad securities and ripped people off.
Goldman Sach's chairman testified in front of Congress and told lie after lie extremely well!
I think a jury can like or not like a particular witness for so many different reasons. The way they look, the way they dress; their overall demeanor; and, yes, the way they talk.
All those things can influence the impression a jury has of a witness AND their credibility or lack thereof.
Right, but does that mean a poor less-educated person going to get less justice in court than a wealthy educated person? Do we have two levels of justice?
But I think that is so wrong. Again, some of the most crooked, deceitful people, like our members of Congress are extremely well-spoken. Lawyers are PAID to lie; they are well-spoken but I wouldn't believe much of what comes out of any lawyers mouth.
Do you see what I mean? Somehow, as a society we have come to equate being educated and well-spoken with being credible and truthful, when often, I think it's just the opposite! Well-spoken, intelligent people know how to twist their words around to lie without the appearance of lying, like the financiers on Wall St. who sold bad securities and ripped people off.
Goldman Sach's chairman testified in front of Congress and told lie after lie extremely well!
Emperors and kings always spoke well and that's why their subjects listened to them. Poorer people seem to have developed different dialects over time that made them seem less intelligent. It's not really about credibility but intelligence. If you sound smart and talk about something that I don't 100% understand, then I'll probably believe you. If you sound like Peter Griffin and tell me that the oceans are rising, I might not believe you. And people know that if you talk unintelligently, the people are going to write off what you say.
Right, but does that mean a poor less-educated person going to get less justice in court than a wealthy educated person? Do we have two levels of justice?
Yes. It means the poor person should let someone else do the talking for them. And poorer people should understand that they need to speak proper English to be believable. Sad but it's a fact. As I said before, Zimmerman's defense was extremely smart in not letting Z talk, because his credibility was sh*t.
Emperors and kings always spoke well and that's why their subjects listened to them. Poorer people seem to have developed different dialects over time that made them seem less intelligent. It's not really about credibility but intelligence. If you sound smart and talk about something that I don't 100% understand, then I'll probably believe you. If you sound like Peter Griffin and tell me that the oceans are rising, I might not believe you. And people know that if you talk unintelligently, the people are going to write off what you say.
I sort of agree. But when I lived in Kentucky I met several people with strong Indiana or Kentucky accents, and that didn't make them stupid or dishonest!
I can see how this would matter in a political debate or intellectual debate,....but in a court of law? Jurors are instructed not to let their feelings of like or dislike of anyone in the trial to affect their decision. I think they should also be advised that the credibility of a witness or a defendant (especially a defendant) should not be determined by their level of education or how articulate they are.
Yes. It means the poor person should let someone else do the talking for them. And poorer people should understand that they need to speak proper English to be believable. Sad but it's a fact. As I said before, Zimmerman's defense was extremely smart in not letting Z talk, because his credibility was sh*t.
I see your point, but if you are a witness in a trial, you have to speak for yourself, you can't just have a lawyer speak for you. Even the Columbian woman in the Zimmerman trial had to testify, albeit with a translator. If you are a defendant in a trial, yes, you have the right not to testify.
Do you think a person who is inarticulate and uses street slang is less credible as a witness in a criminal trial?
Shouldn't jurors receive a jury instruction something like: even though a person does not speak English (let's say a person speaks only Spanish and needs a translator in court), or speaks English poorly , should not influence your judgment of their credibility.
The reason I say this, is that some black, Hispanic people, or recent immigrants, or people with speech impediments (like Rachel Jeantel), may be seen as less credible in a trial, whether they are defendants, witnesses, or lawyers, when really what does the way they talk have to do with their ability to tell the truth?!!!
The state should have provided an ebonics translator. She was less credible because her statements changed/evolved & she lied under oath. Her testimony was also hearsay as to what her friend Trayvon said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
