| 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 | ||
| 612502 | 2007-11-21 04:05:00 | Consensus - "General agreement, characterised 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" [edited] |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612503 | 2007-11-21 06:52:00 | Unless I am wrong, 'modus operandi' is also used in court and also pertains to a different crime. Thanks Sol. :thumbs: Modus operandi which means "method of operating" has gained a criminal meaning because the police use it to describe repeating patterns of criminal behaviour. Essentially the similar fact evidence I referred to earlier falls into modus operandi. Some criminals repeatedly use distinctive methods and where these methods are almost unique, then earlier convictions of crimes using such methods will be admissable. It rarely happens. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 612504 | 2007-11-22 00:15:00 | Yes they should!! | Pato (2463) | ||
| 612505 | 2007-11-22 03:16:00 | For anyone interested the Law Commission has just released a discussion paper on this hot topic . lawcom . govt . nz/ProjectMiscellaneousPaper . aspx?ProjectID=136" target="_blank">www . lawcom . govt . nz Deane may have already posted this but the new Evidence Act 2006 sets out the rules for permitting disclosure of previous convictions: Section 43 Propensity evidence offered by prosecution about defendants (1)The prosecution may offer propensity evidence about a defendant in a criminal proceeding only if the evidence has a probative value in relation to an issue in dispute in the proceeding which outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant . (2)When assessing the probative value of propensity evidence, the Judge must take into account the nature of the issue in dispute . (3)When assessing the probative value of propensity evidence, the Judge may consider, among other matters, the following: (a)the frequency with which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence have occurred: (b)the connection in time between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried: (c)the extent of the similarity between the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried: (d)the number of persons making allegations against the defendant that are the same as, or are similar to, the subject of the offence for which the defendant is being tried: (e)whether the allegations described in paragraph (d) may be the result of collusion or suggestibility: (f)the extent to which the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which are the subject of the evidence and the acts, omissions, events, or circumstances which constitute the offence for which the defendant is being tried are unusual . (4)When assessing the prejudicial effect of evidence on the defendant, the Judge must consider, among any other matters,— (a)whether the evidence is likely to unfairly predispose the fact-finder against the defendant; and (b)whether the fact-finder will tend to give disproportionate weight in reaching a verdict to evidence of other acts or omissions . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||