With the case study given above, it may be ascertained that,
- The want to avoid 'The CSI Effect' is a non-discriminatory reason to eliminate the jurors in general, as it does not conflict to any social discrimination based upon gender, race or other such factors;
- Furthermore, it is to be assumed that 'The CSI Effect' is directly tied to age as per the beliefs of Angela, and involves social discrimination based on the age of jurors.
<h3>What is social discrimination?</h3>
Any discriminative act, which directly relates to a biased behavior based upon the factors such as age, race, gender, ethnicity, and other such factors contained under Constitution lead to social discrimination.
As per the beliefs of Angela, her act of wanting to avoid 'The CSI Effect' conflicts a social discrimination for young jurors only, and not in general, as it is a discrimination of age.
Hence, the significance of social discrimination is aforementioned.
Learn more about social discrimination here:
brainly.com/question/13964317
#SPJ1
The concept of therapeutic jurisprudence suggests that the court should be evaluated not just for its potential effect on recidivism, but for its impact on the well-being of all those who participate in it, and IPV scholars suggest that empowerment is a key component of any therapeutic intervention for victims.
Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;
-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and
-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.
On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or
-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
To learn more about Testimony visit here ; brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults
#SPJ4
