| 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 | ||
| 612402 | 2007-11-18 03:57:00 | I was "assuming" it was you and dean f. You said I am assuming that is a complement... Yes Win,I meant apart from we two. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612403 | 2007-11-18 03:59:00 | Well I just meant you and dean f at this particular time. | winmacguy (3367) | ||
| 612404 | 2007-11-18 04:00:00 | I'm assuming you're one of these people that believes the crim has as many or more rights than the victim? Lets see how you feel after you or a loved one is the victim So, a crime is committed against a victim. The Police swing into action and are able to bring almost inexhaustible resources to bear on a manhunt and/or an investigation - teams of detectives and uniformed officers in some cases. Then, once they've found their person, the prosecution swings into action. Crown lawyers are paid about $100 per hour more than the highest legal aid rates available to senior criminal defence lawyers. Prosecutors get paid for more time in the case than allocated to legal aid defence lawyers - so consequently prosecutors are better lawyers. Mistrials get retried exhaustively by the Crown - take the Barlow case where on the third trial the prosecution spent $35,000 bringing in from the US a single prosecution witness - an FBI blood spatter expert. All this machinery to get crims. Police, a trial system weighted heavily in favour of the Crown - and you think that shows that victims have fewer rights? lol :lol: Actually, I spent three years as a Crown witness and complainant waiting for a case to come to trial. The offender was jailed for 22 months. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612405 | 2007-11-18 04:14:00 | You racist? Well, I do like races - they have a Formula One race in China. But I wouldn't want to go through their justice system, get executed same day and then get my organs harvested. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612406 | 2007-11-18 04:48:00 | Why not? They execute people for excellent reasons, don't tolerate namby pamby flower power rubbish, and the organs go to people more deserving. Its a win-win-win-win situation. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 612407 | 2007-11-18 04:52:00 | I think all of us have a kneejerk response that all previous convictions should be part of the prosecution. However the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is fundamental to our justice system. As other posters have said, the prosecution need to prove the facts of the latest offence by itself. If there is a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks. Yes I know this is hard to stomach and there are some scum (including police officers) who escape conviction. It makes my blood boil but I accept it as the price of having the rule of law which protects every one of us. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 612408 | 2007-11-18 04:55:00 | Incidentally sometimes previous convictions are allowed in as evidence, so its not as cut and dried as it sounds. Similar fact evidence of past crimes is admissable if the probative value outweighs the prejudice to the defendant. This happens if a defendant has a particular modus operandi and has used it in previous crimes. Sort of like a signature of that particular persons activities. Eg. always using a specific and unusual knot to tie people up. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 612409 | 2007-11-18 05:43:00 | Incidentally sometimes previous convictions are allowed in as evidence, so its not as cut and dried as it sounds. Similar fact evidence of past crimes is admissible if the probative value outweighs the prejudice to the defendant. This happens if a defendant has a particular modus operandi and has used it in previous crimes. Sort of like a signature of that particular persons activities. Eg. always using a specific and unusual knot to tie people up. I personally prefer the wreath knot. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612410 | 2007-11-18 07:18:00 | Disclose all previous relevant convictions. E.g. the defendant is up on a burglary charge - let the jury know he has 50 previous convictions. Where is the harm in that? A serial rapist is up before the courts, let the jury know he has been convicted before. The rotters shouldn't be out of jail anyway..... | andrew93 (249) | ||
| 612411 | 2007-11-18 09:12:00 | Disclose all previous relevant convictions. E.g. the defendant is up on a burglary charge - let the jury know he has 50 previous convictions. Where is the harm in that? .. Can just see it: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury this man before you has already been convicted on one burglary charge ten years ago so we're convinced he did it again" "Right," says Metla the juryman crossing his arms and settling back in his seat, "Pointless continuing with a trial - hang him now and save time and money." |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||