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
612452	2007-11-20 00:35:00	Did you vote 'yes' or 'no' in that referendum, or did you not vote? I didn't vote - I was out of the country.	Deane F (8204)
612453	2007-11-20 00:39:00	Rob mate, read the entire post if you are going to reply to me...I support past convicts being made known to the jury!! Whoops!:blush: Sorry, I took the wrong persons reply...ahh, too much celebrating last night... My bad, Im off to bed.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
612454	2007-11-20 00:43:00	Eketahuna C1 In that case that is punishment enough.	Cicero (40)
612455	2007-11-20 00:45:00	Re-read the first post as to what this thread is about - it is not about convictions = evidence (there's your straw man argument), it is about disclosure of previous convictions. In our criminal justice system we require a jury (in indictable and electable/indictable) to agree that a case is proved before settled on a guilty verdict - the argument here is about disclosure of previous convictions to a trial jury - therefore it is about proof. I have never stated that "convictions = evidence". I have asked what is evidential about previous convictions but you have failed to answer. I'm not going to argue with you because there is no point and you don't seem to get it. You're not going to argue because I have made points that you cannot refute. I don't agree with you. That isn't the same as " not getting it". Do you not understand that people armed with the same information can come to different conclusions? I guess you don't because you are consistently rude when I don't agree with you.	Deane F (8204)
612456	2007-11-20 00:51:00	In our criminal justice system we require a jury (in indictable and electable/indictable) to agree that a case is proved before settled on a guilty verdict - the argument here is about disclosure of previous convictions to a trial jury - therefore it is about proof. I have never stated that "convictions = evidence". I have asked what is evidential about previous convictions but you have failed to answer. You're not going to argue because I have made points that you cannot refute. I don't agree with you. That isn't the same as " not getting it". Do you not understand that people armed with the same information can come to different conclusions? I guess you don't because you are consistently rude when I don't agree with you. I prefer rude to pompous.	Cicero (40)
612457	2007-11-20 00:52:00	Instead of removing the right to a fair trial it would be far more to the point to: 1. Speed up the Court process - a year or two is far too long I agree - but by world standards our court system is quite fast. There have been efforts to speed it up and District Court judges now have a far wider jurisdiction which has contributed to some improvement in the times cases take to come to trial. There has also been discussion of the removal of the depositions stage - but so far there has been no action on this. The guy who committed murder whilst on bail for murder got 9 years for the second one. What was it? Half sized sentence for a half sized person? To which case do you refer?	Deane F (8204)
612458	2007-11-20 00:53:00	I prefer rude to pompous. Yes, it shows.	Deane F (8204)
612459	2007-11-20 00:58:00	Yes, it shows. Indeed.	Cicero (40)
612460	2007-11-20 00:59:00	Help me out here, whats your point? Thats a pretty simple document, see how we get on with what? Going by spelling and grammar alone on the PF1 Forum it would seem that the average PF1 poster is not more intelligent than our top judges - which is what digby stated with; "And you must admit that the average F1 poster would have a higher intelligence than ..... the top judges."	Deane F (8204)
612461	2007-11-20 01:01:00	Indeed. Which is not to say that you don't manage both - just one more than the other.	Deane F (8204)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15