No, you're the one who is. They ensure everyone looks on the same level. And not in flashy outfits. They also help with identifying people who prosecure you. And there's a few other reasons they're used.
It seems like a lot of money? Yes it does- given you SHOULD NOT BE WEARING THEM. There are so many reasons that this practice is horrific. The only argument I have seen that works is it is a "mask."
@@rosskourtis9602 So I find that the idea of both sides having "similar hair" (the mask argument) evens the playing-field. What that argument does not consider is- if the judge is wearing one as well, would that not create a false inflation of the council. Also if we just take a step back... these wigs originated at a time where- really it was all white men trying cases. When you have a non white- or non male attorney dawning a wig... now it is not really a mask... because all you did is put a alabaster stark-white (blond)- dated men's hairstyle on someone who it might draw more attention to. Last reason- a overall tradition... it is that. Hairstyle is about self expression and- if the case isn't made... that is on the evidence. A good jury (oh, too soon I am sure...) but overall, while bias does exist- will be screened. They would rather see everything they can. A wig is the redaction a fundamentally important human-factor.
Why make the lining nylon? That material isn't breathable at all.
Wow! this is great. Very impressive Quality
It is horrific
.
A stupid anachronistic relic of our past.
No, you're the one who is.
They ensure everyone looks on the same level. And not in flashy outfits. They also help with identifying people who prosecure you. And there's a few other reasons they're used.
Our Court system functions quite well without wigs.
W.A. has dispensed with this practise years ago.
@@_nom_ It's how you use your advocacy that matters not what you wear
It seems like a lot of money? Yes it does- given you SHOULD NOT BE WEARING THEM. There are so many reasons that this practice is horrific. The only argument I have seen that works is it is a "mask."
what's wrong with it?
@@rosskourtis9602 So I find that the idea of both sides having "similar hair" (the mask argument) evens the playing-field. What that argument does not consider is- if the judge is wearing one as well, would that not create a false inflation of the council. Also if we just take a step back... these wigs originated at a time where- really it was all white men trying cases. When you have a non white- or non male attorney dawning a wig... now it is not really a mask... because all you did is put a alabaster stark-white (blond)- dated men's hairstyle on someone who it might draw more attention to. Last reason- a overall tradition... it is that. Hairstyle is about self expression and- if the case isn't made... that is on the evidence. A good jury (oh, too soon I am sure...) but overall, while bias does exist- will be screened. They would rather see everything they can. A wig is the redaction a fundamentally important human-factor.