| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 84766 | 2007-11-17 18:25:00 | Should Juries see previous convictions ? | Digby (677) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 612362 | 2007-11-17 18:25:00 | Hi Guys Do you think juries should be told about accused's previous convictions during trials ? At present any previous convictions do not come out unless the accused is found guilty. The law commission is looking at this subject. What do you think ? Regards Digby |
Digby (677) | ||
| 612363 | 2007-11-17 18:38:00 | Yes. At the moment the law seems to run in favour of the criminal not the victim. | winmacguy (3367) | ||
| 612364 | 2007-11-17 18:43:00 | Yes the only people who dont want this are lawyers. C1 |
chicken one (6501) | ||
| 612365 | 2007-11-17 18:57:00 | I say - Yes Disclose All Previous convictions. Jurors are not silly. They can decide if the accused's previous behaviour and convictions are relavent to the current trial. And from the accused's point of view, if you have been say violent many times before it DOES probably mean that you will be violent in the future. So the answer is Don't be violent ! I see one of you thinks its lawyers that want this evidence kept from the juries. I tend to believe that the general population are far more sensible than some of these lawyers. Regards Digby |
Digby (677) | ||
| 612366 | 2007-11-17 19:28:00 | Hell yes. From the scum who are up on there 20th burgley charge, to the ****bags who have raped or killed in the past. It should be the very first information presented. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 612367 | 2007-11-17 19:46:00 | YES! however a person is ment to be innocent untill proven guilty and they are ment to be convicted on what they actualy did not what they could have done. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 612368 | 2007-11-17 19:54:00 | YES! however a person is meant to be innocent until proven guilty and they are meant to be convicted on what they actually did not what they could have done . I agree,it would be hard not to be influenced by previous convictions,if per chance on this occasion he was Innocent . I still think it should be told all the same . |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612369 | 2007-11-17 20:16:00 | No. A very few cases hit the headlines and cause mass panic and this reaction. But of the thousands of cases that go through the Courts each year - how many would cause a mis-carriage of justice if past convictions were known? For example, someone convicted years ago of a drugs charge or driving offence charged now with something completely unrelated for which they may be innocent? |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612370 | 2007-11-17 20:46:00 | Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove the whole of their case on the evidence of the case. While past convictions might (might!) show possible inclination - it isn't evidence. Previous convictions are relevant to sentencing and are disclosed at sentencing. But until there is a conviction for the offence being tried - the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence of that offence. There is no reason why past convictions for offences that are not being tried should be treated as evidence. Whether or not juries are smart enough isn't the point. The prosecution has enough in their favour at trial without prejudicing an accused with non-evidential information being presented to a jury or judge. And before I'm accused of left-wingism - this approach to evidence is the opinion of criminal law lecturers all up and down the country. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612371 | 2007-11-17 21:05:00 | Yes, where the previous convictions are relevant. It will allow the prosecution illustrate the person's "character", which is difficult to prove otherwise. | somebody (208) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||