4 ms·
On a related note, appearing in front of a judge by video is becomming more common. Personally I think this is a violation of the 6th amendment.
by kirykl 8y ago
On a related note, appearing in front of a judge by video is becomming more common. Personally I think this is a violation of the 6th amendment.
- ceejayoz 8y agoOut of curiosity, why? The right to face your accuser doesn't require you to be able to hug them.
- jerf 8y agoIt does entitle you to face your accuser, though, not a recording of them, or a simulation of them, or a live-face-hacked stream of them, or any of the other things that may not be a concern right this very second but are coming down the pike fast.
- folkhack 8y agoI bet there's also a measurable difference in outcome when this type of communication is forced through a screen. By removing the face-to-face interaction you're making it easier to remove empathy from the situation... But frankly welcome to the US - we have zero empathy for people who end up incarcerated ='(
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y agoBecause there are subtle differences that make interpretation of another human different over video and face-to-face. Has nothing to do with physical contact. When does someone in a court ever make physical contact with the other party except maybe shaking hands anyway?
- anbop 8y agoIf you go by the “original intent” standard, the amendment was clearly written to mean face-to-face contact since no other type existed.
- chungleong 8y agoThe 6th amendment provides the right "to be confronted with the witnesses". The wording clearly implies a face-to-face meeting. The problem with video testimony is that the jury's ability to observe a witness's demeanor is severely limited. And even with two-way video, the witness wouldn't really be testifying in the accused's presence as he/she could see mainly just the questioner.