In court, some say that witnesses should not be able to share their personal beliefs but some think otherwise. Witnesses should be able to share their personal beliefs in court. There are some rules and laws that must be applied to be able to share personal beliefs. Rules that must be applied for witnesses to be able to speak their opinion.One example is when the evidence of someone's character or character trait is admissible, it can be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. (Cornell University Law School) If someone has valid character traits and it can be proved by testimony, they should be able to speak their opinion. Another example is when someone’s character or character trait
…show more content…
To start, a Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religious sect renowned for descending en masse on small towns or city neighborhoods and calling on members of other faiths to “awake” and escape the snare of the devil and his minions, insisted that pledging allegiance to the flag was a form of idolatry akin to the worship of graven images prohibited by the Bible. (HistoryNet) A man goes from town to town to have others to follow his religion and believe in what he believes in. Meanwhile, a christian witness in a pluralistic world includes engaging in dialogue with people of different religions and cultures (cf. Acts 17:22-28). (Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World) Christian witnesses share their own beliefs about their religions and cultures. An adult Jehovah's Witness who willingly accepts a blood transfusion is considered to be committing a sin and might forfeit his or her eternal life. Many non-Witness sources imply that the WTS teaches that all who have had a transfusion (even if given against their will or at an age or situation when they cannot give informed consent) will automatically lose their promise of eternal life. (Religious Tolerance) A man of this certain religion who receives a blood transfusion is said to go against their religion one man …show more content…
Firstly, aw professors give opinions from the witness stand on the state of domestic law, including federal law; the law of the jurisdiction in which the court is sitting; and the relevant law of other states. (viewcontent.cgi) Professers give opinions from those who are in court.In addition, “It is difficult to know how often this is permitted or how widespread the practice is, but my anecdotal impression is that it is not infrequently allowed.” (viewcontent.cgi) A man quotes that he is extremely surprised that sharing opinions in court is even allowed. “The requirement that a witness testify only about personal or firsthand knowledge, not mere personal opinion, has its roots in medieval law. 2 This requirement demands that witnesses testify only as to "what they [actually] see and hear.” (viewcontent.cgi). In this law, a witness will be able to testify if they have firsthand knowledge and they can’t share any personal opinions. “In addition to the personal knowledge requirement, the so-called opinion rule developed early-on in the common law and became firmly established by the eighteenth century. (viewcontent.cgi) ”This law states that someone could testify in court if that person has some personal knowledge about the
To start, a Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religious sect renowned for descending en masse on small towns or city neighborhoods and calling on members of other faiths to “awake” and escape the snare of the devil and his minions, insisted that pledging allegiance to the flag was a form of idolatry akin to the worship of graven images prohibited by the Bible. (HistoryNet) A man goes from town to town to have others to follow his religion and believe in what he believes in. Meanwhile, a christian witness in a pluralistic world includes engaging in dialogue with people of different religions and cultures (cf. Acts 17:22-28). (Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World) Christian witnesses share their own beliefs about their religions and cultures. An adult Jehovah's Witness who willingly accepts a blood transfusion is considered to be committing a sin and might forfeit his or her eternal life. Many non-Witness sources imply that the WTS teaches that all who have had a transfusion (even if given against their will or at an age or situation when they cannot give informed consent) will automatically lose their promise of eternal life. (Religious Tolerance) A man of this certain religion who receives a blood transfusion is said to go against their religion one man …show more content…
Firstly, aw professors give opinions from the witness stand on the state of domestic law, including federal law; the law of the jurisdiction in which the court is sitting; and the relevant law of other states. (viewcontent.cgi) Professers give opinions from those who are in court.In addition, “It is difficult to know how often this is permitted or how widespread the practice is, but my anecdotal impression is that it is not infrequently allowed.” (viewcontent.cgi) A man quotes that he is extremely surprised that sharing opinions in court is even allowed. “The requirement that a witness testify only about personal or firsthand knowledge, not mere personal opinion, has its roots in medieval law. 2 This requirement demands that witnesses testify only as to "what they [actually] see and hear.” (viewcontent.cgi). In this law, a witness will be able to testify if they have firsthand knowledge and they can’t share any personal opinions. “In addition to the personal knowledge requirement, the so-called opinion rule developed early-on in the common law and became firmly established by the eighteenth century. (viewcontent.cgi) ”This law states that someone could testify in court if that person has some personal knowledge about the