| 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 | ||
| 612412 | 2007-11-18 09:24:00 | Um no, He should have been shot the first time. I have zero tolerance for people who steal other peoples crap. Unless its land, In which case 3 blankets and the flu was a great trade, stop complaining. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 612413 | 2007-11-18 09:34:00 | And if the first one was an error and he didn't do it? The Courts do get it wrong at times. | Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612414 | 2007-11-18 09:38:00 | Courts get crap wrong all the time, been there, seen that, also been on the wrong end of the bull**** stick welded by a moron dishonest cop. Thats life. It would force people to keep their noses clean. Then we could bring the secret police and start offering special treatment for informents. Then start grafting in the kids for some brainwashing...The Metla Youth. Hail. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 612415 | 2007-11-18 15:16:00 | Follow that logic and then tell me Met is not God. If anyone feels an argument rising in there loins,now is the time to doff hat ,bend knee and say hallelujah. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612416 | 2007-11-18 17:08:00 | Heh, maybe my old neighbour was right. His solution: If you're convicted of a second offense, you are shot by the first time offenders inside prison grounds. You'd only ever go back once (And no, my old neighbour wasn't Metla :lol:) |
Myth (110) | ||
| 612417 | 2007-11-19 00:50:00 | "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" If the jury were presented with that scenario (I realise it is partially tongue in cheek) then I reckon the average juror would be smart enough to dismiss that as irrelevant and consider the case before them based on the evidence to hand. Whereas, if you took the other extreme and the defendant was up on a burglary charge with 20, 30, 40 (or any significant number of) previous convictions then IMO the jury should know what sort of character they are faced with and (s)he would have to have a darn good lawyer / argument to get off the current charge. In the situation I have described where is the benefit of holding back that information? |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 612418 | 2007-11-19 01:05:00 | In the situation I have described where is the benefit of holding back that information? If cases are to be tried on evidence then how is the information about previous convictions evidence of crime in the current case? To be quite specific, and given that of the two types of evidence such information is not an exhibit but testimony; who should be responsible for giving the testimony about previous convictions and what exactly does it prove other than that there is a previous conviction? It might tend to suggest something about the person's willingness to commit that crime in past instances - but it does not go to facts about the crime being tried. In which case it becomes prejudicial - no matter how intelligent the jury. Trials are aborted for far lesser prejudicial matters than this sort of thing. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612419 | 2007-11-19 01:27:00 | . . . I reckon the average juror would be smart enough to dismiss that as irrelevant and consider the case before them based on the evidence to hand . . . Not according to one or two posters here . Would the average jury be any different? Only takes one or two people . . . . Whereas, if you took the other extreme and the defendant was up on a burglary charge with 20, 30, 40 (or any significant number of) previous convictions . . . Who sets the number? And once you set a number will that number decrease with time? . . . then IMO the jury should know what sort of character they are faced with and (s)he would have to have a darn good lawyer / argument to get off the current charge . And if they were actually innocent? . . . In the situation I have described where is the benefit of holding back that information? To ensure justice without predjudice |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612420 | 2007-11-19 01:33:00 | ...the average juror would be smart enough... What's the old story? A jury is made up of twelve people who aren't smart enough to get off jury service. |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612421 | 2007-11-19 08:38:00 | If cases are to be tried on evidence then how is the information about previous convictions evidence of crime in the current case? To be quite specific, and given that of the two types of evidence such information is not an exhibit but testimony; who should be responsible for giving the testimony about previous convictions and what exactly does it prove other than that there is a previous conviction? It might tend to suggest something about the person's willingness to commit that crime in past instances - but it does not go to facts about the crime being tried. In which case it becomes prejudicial - no matter how intelligent the jury. Trials are aborted for far lesser prejudicial matters than this sort of thing. Oh, you again. Why don't you just take a small part of my text, quote it out of context and then argue against that. Oh I see you already did that. Last time I told you what I thought of your #$&&#^%&#^^$& arguments I got myself 6 infraction points for my troubles..... So in conclusion, re-read my post and next time you are burgled, lets see how you enjoy it when the jury can't be told the fellow has 100 previous convictions for exactly the same thing. In any case, you never answered my question. So you think we should go soft on criminals? I suppose you were one of the 2% that voted for softer penalties on criminals in that referendum we had that Labour have done nothing about. Well did you? |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||