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
612422	2007-11-19 08:48:00	What's the old story? A jury is made up of twelve people who aren't smart enough to get off jury service. ....or those with a self-interest.... Your previous post about the actual number - I purposely added the 'or any significant number' part because the actual number may be irrelevant. If it is 50 convictions within the lifetime of the accused then that is pretty significant. If it is 10 convictions in the past 12 months then yes I believe that is also significant. If it is a single charge from 5 years ago then who cares? It is a question of relevance. What we are talking about here are career criminals - an anti-social element of the population that does not want to abide by the rules. With recidivist offenders why can't we be prejudiced against them? Why should we go out of our way to protect the rights of those who choose to make a career out of abusing the rights and liberties of the rest of the population? Do you think Deane would let a person with multiple convictions babysit his kids, if he has any? Maybe he would but I seriously doubt it. Is that not prejudicial? Yes it is. Why? Because common sense tells us certain people cannot be trusted. My 2c	andrew93 (249)
612423	2007-11-19 08:53:00	....or those with a self-interest.... Your previous post about the actual number - I purposely added the 'or any significant number' part because the actual number may be irrelevant. If it is 50 convictions within the lifetime of the accused then that is pretty significant. If it is 10 convictions in the past 12 months then yes I believe that is also significant. If it is a single charge from 5 years ago then who cares? It is a question of relevance. What we are talking about here are career criminals - an anti-social element of the population that does not want to abide by the rules. With recidivist offenders why can't we be prejudiced against them? Why should we go out of our way to protect the rights of those who choose to make a career out of abusing the rights and liberties of the rest of the population? Do you think Deane would let a person with multiple convictions babysit his kids, if he has any? Maybe he would but I seriously doubt it. Is that not prejudicial? Yes it is. Why? Because common sense tells us certain people cannot be trusted. My 2c Post of the year.	Metla (12)
612424	2007-11-19 09:06:00	Why don't you just take a small part of my text, quote it out of context and then argue against that. 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 "In which case it becomes prejudicial - no matter how intelligent or "smart enough" the jury (member). Trials are aborted for far lesser prejudicial matters than this sort of thing." and consider the case before them based on the evidence to hand. "...what exactly does it prove other than that there is a previous conviction?" 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 "...but it does not go to facts about the crime being tried" In the situation I have described where is the benefit of holding back that information? The benefit of the doubt - the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Proven guilty - not just the impression of guilt given past acts - but acts that are specific to the case being tried.	Deane F (8204)
612425	2007-11-19 09:12:00	Last time I told you what I thought of your #$&&#^%&#^^$& arguments I got myself 6 infraction points for my troubles..... Well, reflect on that. I haven't been warned, got infraction points, been banned, been contacted by the mods because of my posts or language. Have you? If so, it's because you're at fault - not me. Maybe practice a little self-control. Or put me on your ignore list. Or maybe even front up in person rather than being such a hero behind your safe little keyboard in internet land. :lol:	Deane F (8204)
612426	2007-11-19 10:20:00	Mate, waste of time contesting it, Its the post of the year, Just bask in its wisdom, Bath in the glory, Take some of it upon yourself, and thank whatever events in your life conspired to have you here at this exact time, reading the post of the year. It only happens one a year... ....hence the "year" part of the... Ah, I guess you figured that.....	Metla (12)
612427	2007-11-19 16:48:00	With recidivist offenders why can't we be prejudiced against them? Why should we go out of our way to protect the rights of those who choose to make a career out of abusing the rights and liberties of the rest of the population? We don't go out of our way to protect the rights of "those who choose to make a career etc" We fine them, lock them up in jails, place them under supervision, put them in court-ordered drug rehabs and so on - in other words they lose a lot of their rights. But that's after they have been tried in open court under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Do you think Deane would let a person with multiple convictions babysit his kids, if he has any? Maybe he would but I seriously doubt it. Is that not prejudicial? Yes it is. Why? Because common sense tells us certain people cannot be trusted. I'm not sure what my - or anybody elses choice of babysitter has to do with the law of evidence. But as to prejudice, is it not enough that the person faced with a trial is prejudiced by having been charged and having been through depositions that find there is a case to answer?	Deane F (8204)
612428	2007-11-19 17:31:00	The one thing I like about the jurisprudence here is that we have a "Three Strikes" law on the books that allows a person convicted of a third crime to go to prison permanently . . . . for life . The finding must be felonies, nothing petty or small, and therein lies the twist . It comes to the point of qualifying the crimes . What is a civil penalty or a felony or a death sentence is all graded on the severity of the crime . Murder in the US does NOT equate a death sentence all the time . Mostly it is NOT a life sentence at all . . but rather 13 years in prison is considered a life sentence for murder . With that in mind . . the career criminal has proven that he choses to NOT be rehabilitated and therefor is deserving of a life without parole sentence . This is actually longer than a life sentence for murder . It works out like this for crimes like drug trafficking: A person decides to make a lot of money by selling drugs . He is a loner at this point and may not receive any protection from the power echelon of the cartels . He will likely get caught and thrown into prison for a short time where he can learn to work FOR the cartels, and when he gets out he will have a direct line to an importer where he will then buy his drugs to sell for a larger profit . He MAY be awarded probation at this time and avoid prison altogether . . he IS after all, a first time offender . He will now be protected (territory, sales areas, gang affiliations, family retirement benefits etc), and will likely make a huge amount of money during these years . We are speaking maybe millions of dollars . He will be caught and goto jail for a longer period of time as a "Second-Striker" this time though . He will train and inculcate the drug trafficking schooling to newer "First-Strikers" while he is serving this new, longer prison term . The new dealers in training will be released after their own incarceration to follow in his footsteps . As a convicted "Second-Striker" when he gets released with parole he will not sell or traffic in drugs any more once he gets out . . but will retire with honors in the cartels . . he has made a lot of money and can live a life of leisure and security . He cannot afford to have a "Third-Strike" added to his arrests as that will be a life without parole situation . He must absolutely resist getting involved in any felonies from now on . So-o . yes . . it is imperative to have the whole crime history in front of the court and the jury to appraise the current situation of every major or felonious crime committed . Minor crimes and petty things however should not be allowed to sway for conviction or acquittal . Unfortunately, the crime of selling drugs has a very attractive side to it . You go to prison . . yes . . . but you are really working for a very early retirement with a lot of non-taxable income for life . After about 15 years in prison where you receive special attention from the cartels, you get to live a total life of retirement in the country of your choice and never work again . You have friends in high places . You are respected . No other industry offers these retirement benefits .	SurferJoe46 (51)
612429	2007-11-19 17:33:00	I concur with both Met and Andy,the wisdom of Andy is amazing,so exact.	Cicero (40)
612430	2007-11-19 18:04:00	Hi Guys Great posts to my poll, and such a good debate ! I am in the disclose the convictions camp and find it interesting that although the opposing camp put up a good case three quarters of the votes and for disclosure. And you must admit that the average F1 poster would have a higher intelligence than the average punter in the street, the average criminal, the average MP, and the average lawyer ! and the top judges. Regards Digby	Digby (677)
612431	2007-11-19 18:56:00	I voted yes and agree with Andy. Spot on arguements.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15