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
612372	2007-11-17 22:07:00	No. The accused must be found guilty on the current charges, not on past convictions. The judge should be the only one to take into account previous convictions in deciding the sentence.	vinref (6194)
612373	2007-11-17 22:10:00	It wouldnt matter, WHETHER a jury saw it or not. They cant convict someone on previous convictions. Theyre not relevant to a current trial. Any judge would tell u that. The only people who would go by someones previous conviction list, is someone like a Probation officer. When someone has pleaded G (or found G), and is due to be sentenced. When the P.O is writing their pre-sentence report. This will tell the judge in court, on whether the person should get a community-based sentence (IE: Community work, Supervision), or go to prison. Based on their previous criminal history. And previous sentences. And most judges go by the P.O's recommendation.	Speedy Gonzales (78)
612374	2007-11-17 22:10:00	Previous convictions are admissible if the defense elects to use an argument of good character for the accused. Knowledge of previous convictions, could prejudice a juries impartiality, however, if the offence the accused is charged with is of a similar nature to his previous convictions, then I believe it is acceptable.	KenESmith (6287)
612375	2007-11-17 22:26:00	Previous convictions are admissible if the defense elects to use an argument of good character for the accused. Knowledge of previous convictions, could prejudice a juries impartiality, however, if the offence the accused is charged with is of a similar nature to his previous convictions, then I believe it is acceptable. Thats true, as in sex charges, and if the person is going to get something like preventative detention. For previous and current sex charges. Previous charges / sentences are taken into account. But, thats up to the Crown,Police,Counsel, and Judge as well.	Speedy Gonzales (78)
612376	2007-11-17 23:50:00	I think what is being discussed here,is not the law,for as we all know is an ass. What we are talking about is,should a rotter's background be used in a trial,the answer of all the reasonable among-st us must be yes. Where these Dean Fellow,the knower of all things would take us,the fact that these cads get off doesn't bother him at all. These are wuffians and rough justice is needed.	Cicero (40)
612377	2007-11-17 23:58:00	I think what is being discussed here,is not the law,for as we all know is an ass. What we are talking about is,should a rotter's background be used in a trial,the answer of all the reasonable among-st us must be yes. Where these Dean Fellow,the knower of all things would take us,the fact that these cads get off doesn't bother him at all. These are wuffians and rough justice is needed. The question is : Whats the point in letting Jurors look at conviction lists?? They cant prove that someone is guilty, just by looking at someone's previous convictions. Like I said, they can't use it against someone whos currently on trial. And they cant use them to decide the verdict. If you were the criminal, and if you were on trial, WOULD YOU like it, if other people were looking at your criminal history? Think about it.	Speedy Gonzales (78)
612378	2007-11-18 00:12:00	All this is with reference to ruffians,we just want to see them disappear.	Cicero (40)
612379	2007-11-18 00:13:00	lol, well until the law changes, you, me, and everyone else can do jack about it. End of story.	Speedy Gonzales (78)
612380	2007-11-18 00:15:00	Yes, the jury should be told of former convictions, but only if the past convictions are relevant	Myth (110)
612381	2007-11-18 00:32:00	lol, well until the law changes, you, me, and everyone else can do jack about it. End of story. The question was Speedy,should juries see previous convictions,not what is the law.	Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15