In court proceedings, evidence is presented as either oral or written depending on the choice of the witness. In addition, the means of giving evidence may be determined by the court or the jury in charge under various considerations. Both oral and written evidence have the same purpose and can be used as the basis of court ruling (Edwards et al., 2011). In this situation where as a human resource I will be required to provide evidence of a discrimination lawsuit, the written method of evidence presentation will be the most appropriate to answer the questions from the Jury.
The method of written presentation will allow adequate time to prepare and present my part of evidence and with adequate in formations. Since the presentation of evidence requires information detailing the truth about the matter and the organizations position on the case and the policy that were under consideration, the written evidence would help me to consult with other legal experts and answer questions accordingly. Oral evidence would prevent consultations that might result in inaccurate evidence that will be used to give unfair rulings.
Moreover, written evidence will save a lot of time that could have been used to present the oral presentation in the court. In addition, any inconveniences would such as absenteeism in work place and productivity of the firm will be avoided (Edwards et al., 2011). Hence, written evidence will ensure that the operations of the business are not affected in any way. Moreover, it will reduce the cost incurred during the lawsuit proceedings.
Finally, written evidence presents a proof that the information communicated is true and cannot be changes. This ensures that the evidence is not compromised since is always read and presented to court as the original copy of evidence. This is in contrast to oral presentation where evidence may be changed where one may be questioned more than once hence compromising the evidence, which may affect the reliability of the evidence.
Jury decision making emotional damages
The Jury would rely on information from psychiatrists and medical experts who would evaluate the damages that the plaintiff suffered as a result of discriminations. This would involve psychological and mental problems that may have arose because of the discrimination (Edwards et al., 2011). Stress would be one of the conditions that may be evaluated and whether there were medical complications that resulted from the discriminatory acts. In addition, the information about the pain suffered because of discrimination would be evaluated on medical basis. These sufferings could then be compared with any financial implications suffered.
In addition, information regarding how the working and the productivity of the plaintiff was affected could be used to determine the level of the effects of emotional damages and thus form the basis of monetary compensation. For example, if in any case the discrimination resulted in decreased productivity of the plaintiff, which reduced the financial income of the income would form the basis of monetary compensation decision. Moreover, it could be evaluated based on how the act affected his or her defendant day-to-day life.
Similar during the proceedings, the defence presents their argument on the amount of monetary compensation that should be awarded to the plaintiff (Edwards et al., 2011). Jury determine the compensatory amount that should be paid to the plaintiff depending on the information provided by the defence team. When the court uses this information as the basis of their compensatory decision, the court act in favour of the plaintiff and it may end up awarding huge sums of money, which may be unfair to the respondent.
Finally, the jury would use their freedom that is granted by the section of the law to determine the damage caused to the plaintiff and use the evidence presented to award monetary compensation. The decision could either be based on similar cases that were ruled in the past of depending on the reasoning of the bench.
Edwards, L., Edwards, J. S., & Wells, P. (2011). Tort Law. Cengage Learning.