Everything is done by typed text, with no humans visible. Jurors just sit isolated in a booth reading the text, or have the same person read out all the text to them.
Lawyers would be against it, but everyone would benefit from a society that decides guilt based on how convincing an argument is and not how convincing the person saying the argument is.
"Look at that man, he is guilty." Is not very convincing when the person who is supposedly guilty has never been seen.
Sounds nice in theory, but the whole idea behind the right to face your accuser is that people depend on their senses to judge if someone's lying or not by how he/she reacts to the confrontation.
Perhaps, but "I can tell if someone is lying or not by [their manner]" sounds like exactly the kind of situation where people wildly overestimate their own abilities, doesn't it?
Tonal variation, speech cadence, hand gestures, and facial expressions sometimes communicate as much as what you actually say. That is probably important in a court environment. I would love to see your idea tested though.
The conversion of {speech, body language} to {text, nothing} is pretty severe when you're on a jury trying to establish if the person on the stand is credible.
I have a dream, that one day I will live in a country where peoples credibility will be decided by the strengths of their argument and not the sound of their accent.
Everything is done by typed text, with no humans visible. Jurors just sit isolated in a booth reading the text, or have the same person read out all the text to them.
Lawyers would be against it, but everyone would benefit from a society that decides guilt based on how convincing an argument is and not how convincing the person saying the argument is.
"Look at that man, he is guilty." Is not very convincing when the person who is supposedly guilty has never been seen.