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.
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?!!!
It doesn't. Their lying usually gets in the way of their credibility. Also, coaching the witness has somehting to do with credibility.
Yes, but having watched the interview with Zimmerman juror B37, she says she didn't find Rachel Jeantel credible, and when he asks her why, she never says anything about inconsistencies in Rachel's testimony or that it didn't match other witness testimony, something substantial. Instead she refers to the fact that she couldn't understand what Rachel said, and that "they" speak in a way she doesn't understand.
I'd hate to think that if I spoke in broken English, or had a strong accent, that my testimony would be discredited in a court of law!
You damn right it does. If you are not educated enough to speak something other than Ebonics or street slang, you don't need to be a witness, or a juror for that matter.
We all go to school from at least age 5 to 16, and in that amount of time, if you can't learn the right or wrong way to speak in a professional manner, then how can one expect you to be credible enough?
You damn right it does. If you are not educated enough to speak something other than Ebonics or street slang, you don't need to be a witness, or a juror for that matter.
We all go to school from at least age 5 to 16, and in that amount of time, if you can't learn the right or wrong way to speak in a professional manner, then how can one expect you to be credible enough?
Because how you speak has nothing to do with how truthful or accurate your testimony in a court of law might be?
Being well spoken does not make you an honest person, just look at our members of Congress!!! or some of the Wall St. crooks.
Being untruthful and inaccurate has to do with how truthful and accurate you are....
in addition, she didn't even want to be there!!! How bad did she want to fight for one of her "best friends"??? Supposedly, the "only boy who didn't make fun of her" and she didn't even want to stay for 2 more hours....she didn't want to come back to court the next day to put her great friends killer in jail. The star witness...the witness with the BEST chance of getting the "justice" the Martin family preferred.
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.
Being untruthful and inaccurate has to do with how truthful and accurate you are....
in addition, she didn't even want to be there!!! How bad did she want to fight for one of her "best friends"??? Supposedly, the "only boy who didn't make fun of her" and she didn't even want to stay for 2 more hours....she didn't want to come back to court the next day to put her great friends killer in jail. The star witness...the witness with the BEST chance of getting the "justice" the Martin family preferred.
I agree. But to me that made her testimony more, not less credible. She was not invested in the trial, despite having a friendship with Trayvon. She was just saying what happened.
Because how you speak has nothing to do with how truthful or accurate your testimony in a court of law might be?
Being well spoken does not make you an honest person, just look at our members of Congress!!! or some of the Wall St. crooks.
If you sound like an uneducated idiot, people might not take anything you say seriously. Sad but true!
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.
