Juries to be told of previous convictions

Carl Faulkner · 28-10-2004, 01:26 PM

It would be for a jury to determine the weight of this type of evidence.

About 90% of criminal trials are by magistrates. Magistrates see the same people time and time again in front of them. They know the previous form and convictions. It doesn't stop them from finding someone not-gulity on the facts.

Let's face it. If the police and CPS must belive every defendant to be guilty otherwise they wouldn't be in the dock. Does that really cause pelple to reach a verdict of guity ? I think not.

rjt · 28-10-2004, 02:21 PM

Someones past should have no bearing on the outcome of this case, what I say about Jurys should apply to majistrates as well. It is for the prosercution to prove guilt beyond reasanoble doubt, the law does not need to give them a "leg up" in order to make thier task easier, they are the ones who should have the more difficult Job.

Carl Faulkner · 28-10-2004, 02:50 PM

...but following that line of logic no person involved in any trial should have any knowledge...jurors; judge; lawyers...the type of crime will speak for itself...a person accused of murder could not complain if it were revealed they had convictions for attempted murder or threatening to kill the same person. That is concrete evidence of behaviour unlike most of the evidence which is unproven and is just on the say so of a witness.

rjt · 28-10-2004, 06:26 PM

At the present time a Judge in a crown court trial and both sets of barristers know about previous convictions, the Jury do not I am arguing that should always remain the case. If someone has been overheard threatening to kill someone they are accused of murdering then that is evidence for that case so of course it is appropriate it is heard. What is not apprpriate is a disclosure of past convictions to a Jury, so if the defendant has previously been convicted of threatenning to kill someone that they now stand trial accused of murdering then of course disclosure would predjudice thier defence.

mkpdavies · 28-10-2004, 08:51 PM

The ways things are going we will be back to burning witches, sooner or later.

Each case should be taken indivudualy, as it is not fair to throw a persons past INTO phpbb_the equation. The police will just get anyone who has a bit of history and put them on trial for crimes they didn't do. The jury will think, ooooh he's nasty, burn the witch. He will be punished again and the person who really did it will get away scot free. The current system ensures the right people are brought to book, and is the only fair way of doing it.

Sure the past convictions should come INTO phpbb_play IF the person is convicted on the new case. Then multiple convictions should ensure a much stiffer penalty.

Carl Faulkner · 29-10-2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

If someone has been overheard threatening to kill someone they are accused of murdering then that is evidence for that case so of course it is appropriate it is heard. What is not apprpriate is a disclosure of past convictions to a Jury, so if the defendant has previously been convicted of threatenning to kill someone that they now stand trial accused of murdering then of course disclosure would predjudice their defence

So if a man has been overheard threatening to kill someone that is acceptable evidence (heresay?) but if the sane man has a proven conviction of threatenting to kill the same person that is not acceptable. I fail to see the logic in that.

Let's take it a step further...the police are not allowed to look at previous convictions when looking for the culprit. Every man must have an equal chance of not being accused.

It is I undersatnd only going to be relevant convictions that a jury will hear about which will be determined by the trial judge.

I don't think the judge will allow convictions of flashing in a public park to be made known when the defendant is on a charge of robbery. (unless the robbery ocured at a naturist club and there were questions of identification and modus operandi.

rjt · 29-10-2004, 10:27 AM

All evidence is in theroy hearsay until the case is actually proven. A conviction is fact, it is recorded against the individual and could predjudice the outcome of the case against the defendant. It is for the Jury to decide whether the evidence is strong enough to be considered more than hearsay.

28-10-2004, 08:51 PM	#15 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,150 Party: Libertarian Party	The ways things are going we will be back to burning witches, sooner or later. Each case should be taken indivudualy, as it is not fair to throw a persons past INTO phpbb_the equation. The police will just get anyone who has a bit of history and put them on trial for crimes they didn't do. The jury will think, ooooh he's nasty, burn the witch. He will be punished again and the person who really did it will get away scot free. The current system ensures the right people are brought to book, and is the only fair way of doing it. Sure the past convictions should come INTO phpbb_play IF the person is convicted on the new case. Then multiple convictions should ensure a much stiffer penalty. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28-10-2004, 01:26 PM	#11 (permalink)
Carl Faulkner Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 352	It would be for a jury to determine the weight of this type of evidence. About 90% of criminal trials are by magistrates. Magistrates see the same people time and time again in front of them. They know the previous form and convictions. It doesn't stop them from finding someone not-gulity on the facts. Let's face it. If the police and CPS must belive every defendant to be guilty otherwise they wouldn't be in the dock. Does that really cause pelple to reach a verdict of guity ? I think not.

28-10-2004, 02:21 PM	#12 (permalink)
rjt Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Aldershot Posts: 5,479	Someones past should have no bearing on the outcome of this case, what I say about Jurys should apply to majistrates as well. It is for the prosercution to prove guilt beyond reasanoble doubt, the law does not need to give them a "leg up" in order to make thier task easier, they are the ones who should have the more difficult Job.

28-10-2004, 02:50 PM	#13 (permalink)
Carl Faulkner Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 352	...but following that line of logic no person involved in any trial should have any knowledge...jurors; judge; lawyers...the type of crime will speak for itself...a person accused of murder could not complain if it were revealed they had convictions for attempted murder or threatening to kill the same person. That is concrete evidence of behaviour unlike most of the evidence which is unproven and is just on the say so of a witness.

28-10-2004, 06:26 PM	#14 (permalink)
rjt Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Aldershot Posts: 5,479	At the present time a Judge in a crown court trial and both sets of barristers know about previous convictions, the Jury do not I am arguing that should always remain the case. If someone has been overheard threatening to kill someone they are accused of murdering then that is evidence for that case so of course it is appropriate it is heard. What is not apprpriate is a disclosure of past convictions to a Jury, so if the defendant has previously been convicted of threatenning to kill someone that they now stand trial accused of murdering then of course disclosure would predjudice thier defence.

29-10-2004, 10:27 AM	#17 (permalink)
rjt Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Aldershot Posts: 5,479	All evidence is in theroy hearsay until the case is actually proven. A conviction is fact, it is recorded against the individual and could predjudice the outcome of the case against the defendant. It is for the Jury to decide whether the evidence is strong enough to be considered more than hearsay.