| 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 | ||
| 612442 | 2007-11-19 20:44:00 | No. A very few cases hit the headlines and cause mass panic and this reaction. But of the thousands of cases that go through the Courts each year - how many would cause a mis-carriage of justice if past convictions were known? For example, someone convicted years ago of a drugs charge or driving offence charged now with something completely unrelated for which they may be innocent? I think past convictions show 'Form" as it were, the accused is not all innocent, they are not strangers to breaking the law, however a drugs charge is completely different to a rape or murder charge. Even a simpleton and see no relationship there! |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 612443 | 2007-11-19 21:00:00 | Reading this thread, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that just because we want past convictions known, does NOT amount to evidance. WHO ever said past convictions were evidence? Past convictions show the charged offender isnt of impeckable character, if inclined, this offender has shown he is prepared to break the law........etc. If a policeman (ex) had previously been convicted for rape, and was now up for another rape and the jury was NOT aware of the previous conviction, they would think, hang on, this guy is\was a policeman, hardly likely he is a rapist, he must be of fairly good character. But, if previous rape conviction is known, then they know that the evidence presented is NOT OUT OF CHARACTER |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 612444 | 2007-11-19 21:05:00 | I think past convictions show 'Form" as it were, the accused is not all innocent, they are not strangers to breaking the law, however a drugs charge is completely different to a rape or murder charge. Even a simpleton and see no relationship there! You are basing your views on your own educational and intelligence standards - as we all are prone to do. There is no reason to suppose that all members of a jury meet these standards. Try this one for the thoughts of one or more jury members: He's been done for drugs in the past, therefore he's probably using them now, therefore he probably committed the rape/murder in a drugged state, therefore he probably did it. Stuff the evidence or lack of it. Hang him now whether he did it or not. |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612445 | 2007-11-19 21:34:00 | Mercury, over 75% of the populous has tried drugs, me included. The only violent drug I know is 'P', which I haven't tried for several reason. Drug per sa dont make people violent, alcohol does. You are expecting the jury to go from all who drink alcohol, to they are drunk drivers!? The point of past convictions being presented is to advise the jury that while drinking, this person is known to have, and NOT beyond braking the law and driving while intoxicated. Character goes a long way in how people judge others and it is one of the hardest things for people to change. |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 612446 | 2007-11-19 21:52:00 | If 100% of NZ (minus the stupid law fraternity and scum politicians of course) voted for previous convictions to be stated to the jury it still wont become law. The politicians and lawyers are in it together and have it all wrapped up. The law will never change, The will of the people is treated like !@#$ to lawyers and politicians. Previous convictions mean the person is an ex con and always will be just like an ex smoker. Juries should at least know the crim in the dock is an ex convict. C1 |
chicken one (6501) | ||
| 612447 | 2007-11-19 21:57:00 | If 100% of NZ (minus the stupid law fraternity and scum politicians of course) voted for previous convictions to be stated to the jury it still wont become law. The politicians and lawyers are in it together and have it all wrapped up. The law will never change, The will of the people is treated like !@#$ to lawyers and politicians. Previous convictions mean the person is an ex con and always will be just like an ex smoker. Juries should at least know the crim in the dock is an ex convict. C1 What you say might have merit,do think it is a conspiracy by our rulers? |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612448 | 2007-11-19 22:53:00 | Reading this thread, a lot of people seem to be under the impression that just because we want past convictions known, does NOT amount to evidance. WHO ever said past convictions were evidence? People arent worried about petty offences, its the biggies like rape, murder etc If a serial rapist is up for rape...then yes, humans are creatures of habit, chances are a murderer will murder again if given the chance. These are life threatening/changing events, that must be looked into, past included. To leave it out will let more murderers walk...look at that Sunday program. |
rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 612449 | 2007-11-19 23:16:00 | Rob mate, read the entire post if you are going to reply to me...I support past convicts being made known to the jury!! | SolMiester (139) | ||
| 612450 | 2007-11-19 23:55:00 | If 100% of NZ (minus the stupid law fraternity and scum politicians of course) voted for previous convictions to be stated to the jury it still wont become law. The politicians and lawyers are in it together and have it all wrapped up. The law will never change, The will of the people is treated like !@#$ to lawyers and politicians. C1 Damn! :mad: :mad: How'd you know that?? :confused: Where do you live C1. .....simply as a matter of friendly interest......a few chaps might pop around to have a chat. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 612451 | 2007-11-20 00:03:00 | Damn! :mad: :mad: How'd you know that?? :confused: Where do you live C1 ......simply as a matter of friendly interest......a few chaps might pop around to have a chat. Eketahuna C1 |
chicken one (6501) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||