| 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 | ||
| 612462 | 2007-11-20 01:16:00 | Which is not to say that you don't manage both - just one more than the other. Ah,for a moment there I thought you recognised one of your faults,but alas that was a big ask. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612463 | 2007-11-20 02:01:00 | Ah,for a moment there I thought you recognised one of your faults,but alas that was a big ask. I guess you must have missed the speck in my eye. Something must be obscuring your vision. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612464 | 2007-11-20 02:11:00 | I guess you must have missed the speck in my eye. Something must be obscuring your vision. You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612465 | 2007-11-20 02:17:00 | So then Dean, missed your argument against disclosure, what was your reason again? | SolMiester (139) | ||
| 612466 | 2007-11-20 02:22:00 | So then Dean, missed your argument against disclosure, what was your reason again? It's not evidence of the crime being tried. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612467 | 2007-11-20 02:41:00 | I didn't vote - I was out of the country. This just gets better! So here we have an individual who chooses not to exercise his democratic right and then tries to tell the rest of us how to exercise ours. That's just priceless! {Not rude - just a statement of fact given you could have cast a special vote}. 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.Where oh where did I say that previous convictions are evidence in my arguments, other than quoting you? You keep stating the obvious, which we all know, but the point is that is not what this debate is about. Re-read my post about recidivist offenders and you may get my point. You're not going to argue because I have made points that you cannot refute.Rubbish. You are arguing the wrong point which is not in dispute. Keep arguing if you like but I think we all agree previous convictions are not evidence. You keep asking me to answer your questions which I never opposed in my posts. Re-read the 'recidivist offenders' post - where did I say previous convictions are evidence? Do you not understand that people armed with the same information can come to different conclusions? Is that not prejudicial on your part? I guess you don't because you are consistently rude when I don't agree with you.Once again, you accuse me of the very tactics you employ. Well done! Stating facts and stating the obvious can be considered rude by some but I think you are being over-sensitive.......... How about you refer to my reply to your PM the other day - the one where I invite you to meet meI never got a PM from you. I'm sorry but I will have to decline your invitation - I don't like meeting with strange men over the internet.......... Deane you cannot change my opinion so don't bother trying. We are arguing about different points. Yes we all know the law but this thread was seeking opinions on making a change to that. |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 612468 | 2007-11-20 03:18:00 | ITo which case do you refer? Sorry, my mistake. I was referring to the Michael Curran case from the other day. I made the reference from memory (which was slightly faulty). It was 9 years for the first murder and I guess sentencing for the second is still to come. www.nzherald.co.nz |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612469 | 2007-11-20 03:56:00 | Well, reflect on that. I haven't been warned, got infraction points, been banned, been contacted by the mods because of my posts or language. Have you? If so, it's because you're at fault - not me. Maybe practice a little self-control. Or put me on your ignore list. Or maybe even front up in person rather than being such a hero behind your safe little keyboard in internet land. :lol:Gosh, had I missed you on my hot list of those that like to stir and insult others? I'm impressed, you have managed to insult at least three different members in this thread, and then encompassed the rest with your generalised statement that those who are not flash in grammar or spelling must obviously be dim. Good one. You may not reply/react back in a way that will result in an infraction, but you are not squeaky clean in your behaviour on this forum. Reflect on that. |
Jen (38) | ||
| 612470 | 2007-11-20 03:59:00 | This just gets better! So here we have an individual who chooses not to exercise his democratic right and then tries to tell the rest of us how to exercise ours . That's just priceless! {Not rude - just a statement of fact given you could have cast a special vote} . Hmmm - just where did I tell anybody how to exercise their democratic right? You keep stating what this discussion is about - I don't remember the exercise of democratic rights coming into it . Where oh where did I say that previous convictions are evidence in my arguments, other than quoting you? You didn't . Nor did I say you did . You keep stating the obvious, which we all know, but the point is that is not what this debate is about . Re-read my post about recidivist offenders and you may get my point . I get your point about recidivist offenders . However, to suppose that recidivist offenders are constantly walking free merely because the jury didn't get to hear about previous convictions is mere supposition . but I think we all agree previous convictions are not evidence . As it stands the onus of proof rests firmly upon the Crown . They must prove the whole of their case beyond reasonable doubt - based on the evidence of the case . The change that your argue is not merely technical . It would be a fundamental change to the criminal justice system . To make a change so large requires a very compelling need . Where is this need? Schollum, Shipton et al got acquitted because the Crown failed to prove . The defence counsel used the good old "nuts and sluts" approach and it worked . But one case does not make an argument for a change this large . Once again, you accuse me of the very tactics you employ . Well done! Stating facts and stating the obvious can be considered rude by some but I think you are being over-sensitive . . . . . . . . . . Over sensitive? You PMed me using abusive language . It seems the mods contacted you . They didn't contact me . I never got a PM from you . I'm sorry but I will have to decline your invitation - I don't like meeting with strange men over the internet . . . . . . . . . . I had no doubt you would refrain from abusing me to my face like you did in your PM . It's pretty standard for people who post abusive comments on internet fora . They use language toward others on a forum which would get them hospitalised at a pub . Deane you cannot change my opinion so don't bother trying . I'm not interested in changing your opinion - but I am interested in your opinion even if it conflicts with mine . No matter what you might think, I value your beliefs and defend your right to hold them . We are arguing about different points . Yes we all know the law but this thread was seeking opinions on making a change to that . Oh, we're arguing the same points . However, I suspect you see the argument as a combat rather than a form of enquiry . Pity . |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612471 | 2007-11-20 04:39:00 | This topic tends to come up at very specific times - whenever the papers decide to go in for a bit of trial by media. The Cops. OK, they "got off". But did they? They might not be spending a bit of time behind bars reflecting on their sins but... - The case would have taken a year or two to go before the Courts - They would have been living with the huge stress of it for that time - The defence would have cost them 10's of 1,000's of dollars - At least one of them - his wife left him over it - They lost their careers and high paying jobs - They underwent a major Trial By Media - Their names are mud throughout NZ - Their lives will never be the same again I, personally, don't think they got off scot free by any means. |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||