| 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 | ||
| 612492 | 2007-11-20 22:25:00 | Returning to the issue of whether previous convictions should be admissable, I think there is an argument for more openness . If an accused has convictions of crimes of a similar nature to the current charge, that is a valid fact which a jury could hear . It would go to the question of character of the accused, his propensity to commit such a crime, and his experience of criminal acts . Yes it is prejudical but so are the tattoos on gang members who face trials . Nevertheless they are sometimes acquitted . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 612493 | 2007-11-20 22:39:00 | One possibility would be only by pre-trial application to a judge to permit it in certain circumstances. | Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612494 | 2007-11-20 22:40:00 | Returning to the issue of whether previous convictions should be admissable, I think there is an argument for more openness. If an accused has convictions of crimes of a similar nature to the current charge, that is a valid fact which a jury could hear. It would go to the question of character of the accused, his propensity to commit such a crime, and his experience of criminal acts. The character of the accused is not at question in a trial. They are not being tried for their character but for a crime. The prosecution must prove actus reus (a guilty act) and mens rea (a guilty mind). Mens rea is relevant only to the charge at trial. Given that they are innocent until proven guilty, past convictions presented as evidence of a current crime would almost qualify as double jeopardy. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612495 | 2007-11-20 23:38:00 | . . . . . . past convictions presented as evidence of a current crime would almost qualify as double jeopardy . I think you mean autrefois acquit . As for mens rea, isn't evidence of previous similar convictions indicative of that accused having the capacity to form the nescessary mental intent? This is a good subject to debate and we mustn't be too precious about it . The law already allows similar fact evidence from previous crimes to be adduced, the problem being that it doesn't happen very often . Certainly this goes to actus reas . So all I'm suggesting is to open the floodgates a little wider from a trickle to a gentle flow . I'm no fan of mob justice or knee-jerk reactions to specific cases but there seem to have been a slew of situations lately where justice has not been seen to be done in the eyes of the public . Offenders acquitted with relevant prior convictions . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 612496 | 2007-11-21 01:22:00 | Way to go Winston, I was looking for a few of those words earlier as in "propensity to commit such a crime" and "iindicative of that accused having the capacity to form the necessary mental intent" Unless I am wrong, 'modus operandi' is also used in court and also pertains to a different crime. |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 612497 | 2007-11-21 01:28:00 | Ministers set policy. The policy is decided at Cabinet meetings. The Cabinet is advised by civil servants and the ministers' secretaries for that portfolio. Civil servants are responsible for the execution of policy and day-to-day running of the ministry and its various departments. As for radical changes - well, the ministers get to be accountable at election time... (So hardly at all given that most of them are high on the list and will get their seat even if they lose their electorate.) Minister are the cabinet whether or not they have advise from any other yes?, they still have no skills at said portfolio yes?, exceptions of course! Civil servants have nothing to do with the question\statement! As for MP getting in that weren't even voted in eg: Bradford, what the hell is the point of voting a candidate on his\her promises, ideas?... |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 612498 | 2007-11-21 01:49:00 | That why I like the US system where I think the President chooses his cabinet and may select an opposition member if he is perceived to be an expert on the position, and they can also choose non senate or non congress members if they have a particular expertise. Eg they could choose a top cop to be secretary of police. Or a top finance guy to be secretary of finance etc. regards Digby |
Digby (677) | ||
| 612499 | 2007-11-21 02:15:00 | As for mens rea, isn't evidence of previous similar convictions indicative of that accused having the capacity to form the nescessary mental intent? Mens rea is based around intent in some cases - but not all - and intent insofar as it pertains to consequence (or implications) of action. It's a hell of a stretch to bring previous convictions under the definition of mens rea. A person either has the mental capacity to stand trial - or not. Unless a defences such as temporary insanity, stupefaction etc are being argued, it is given that a person has the mental capacity to commit the crime if it is so proved. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612500 | 2007-11-21 02:21:00 | In conclusion I think the consensus was yes,we should see previous convictions. Phew that was hard work,any- thing else you need sorting,come here. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612501 | 2007-11-21 03:36:00 | Consensus - "General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments" | Deane F (8204) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||