Rapist - not guilty - but guilty

[Johnmelad502]

Following a four day trial, the jury found a man accused of raping two twelve year old girls, not guilty. (Local story)

The court was then told that this same piece of pond life had already admitted raping another girl five times, on two occasions when she was just seven-years-old.

Should juries know about previous convictions etc, before deciding on their verdict?

 

[wotan]

I believe previous convictions should be read out in court, not necessarily the details of the offence but certainly the time served.
Anyone applying for a job working with children have to be vetted first
for any police convictions, before they can be employed in that job, so I believe that same information if any, should be made available to the jury.

Wotan

 

[ellal]

It's always the case that those who wish to bring in a measure quote the most evocative cases...

but just because someone may have commited an offence previously doesn't mean they have done it again...

A basic right in our society is to have a case against you heard on the facts of the case - not supposition, and that is what disclosing previous convictions contravenes..

It also means it's much easier for plod to 'get a result' based on prejudice, and will lead to more miscarriages of justice...

human nature being what it is will assume that 'he must have done it' given his record...

 

[Johnmelad502]

It's always the case that those who wish to bring in a measure quote the most evocative cases...

but just because someone may have commited an offence previously doesn't mean they have done it again...

A basic right in our society is to have a case against you heard on the facts of the case - not supposition, and that is what disclosing previous convictions contravenes..

It also means it's much easier for plod to 'get a result' based on prejudice, and will lead to more miscarriages of justice...

human nature being what it is will assume that 'he must have done it' given his record...

I used this case because it was local to where I live, not because it was as you claim, evocative

Seems to be a double edged sword in that this piece of pondlife who was guilty as hell was found not guilty. Had the jury known of his past he would almost certainly have been correctly found guilty.

For me if a child rapist is found guilty at trial because he previously raped a child, tough.

 

[ColJack]

that's exactly the point though, you say he's guilty as hell because you know he's done it before, but based solely on the evidence of the case, 12 people decided that he wasn't..

you cannot know for sure that he did or did not do what he's accused of this time, and have based your claim on a biased view..

I shoplifted a handful of sweets when I was 12 because it was a rush and all my mates were doing it.. does that make me a hardened criminal who will steal the fillings from your teeth while you're not looking?
no..

or more to the point after reading this in another post you started...

1. I pinched some money off of a collection plate in my local church.

does that make you a career thief? if you were accused of syphoning money from the works bank account, should we hear about a self confessed theft from your past?

 

[Johnmelad502]

that's exactly the point though, you say he's guilty as hell because you know he's done it before, but based solely on the evidence of the case, 12 people decided that he wasn't..

you cannot know for sure that he did or did not do what he's accused of this time, and have based your claim on a biased view..

I shoplifted a handful of sweets when I was 12 because it was a rush and all my mates were doing it.. does that make me a hardened criminal who will steal the fillings from your teeth while you're not looking?
no..

or more to the point after reading this in another post you started...

1. I pinched some money off of a collection plate in my local church.

does that make you a career thief? if you were accused of syphoning money from the works bank account, should we hear about a self confessed theft from your past?

He raped a 7 year old girl 5 times on two separate occasions and admitted it, I don't give a monkeys kuss if he was innocent this time (which he was not) I would see him locked away just for breathing.

Please don't lecture me in a way that seems to suggest that you are defending this pondlife paedophile. I would see him locked up just for breathing.

 

[ellal]

I used this case because it was local to where I live, not because it was as you claim, evocative

Of course it was 'evocative'...why not choose a repeat burglar example then?

Seems to be a double edged sword in that this piece of pondlife who was guilty as hell was found not guilty. Had the jury known of his past he would almost certainly have been correctly found guilty.

For me if a child rapist is found guilty at trial because he previously raped a child, tough.

Thanks for proving my point...



btw, do you wish to see the return of the 'ducking stool' too?...

 

[Johnmelad502]

Of course it was 'evocative'...why not choose a repeat burglar example then?

Because there were no repeat burglaries on the local news this evening.

Thanks for proving my point...

Only in your dreams

btw, do you wish to see the return of the 'ducking stool'...

Is that how you would deal with men who rape seven year old children?

Kin Liberals

 

[ellal]

Is that how you would deal with men who rape seven year old children?

Kin Liberals

Fortunately unlike you I believe that anyone should receive a fair trial...

But maybe you're one to pick up a pitchfork and exact vigilante justice too?

Kin pr*ck..

 

[ColJack]

frankly I'd have strung him up from the nearest lampost when he was convicted of the first..

but given that today we have DNA evidence and so on it's a fairly safe bet that if they found him not guilty this time then there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt..

they'd have taken swabs and so on and compared them to his DNA which they must have on file given his previous conviction..

your blind faith that he is guitly again is what would prevent the police from persuing it further and finding that it is their weird uncle or their dad, or whoever it might be was doing it to them, and may carry on if he was convicted..

 

[RF Lighting]

Of course it was 'evocative'...why not choose a repeat burglar example then?

Because there were no repeat burglaries on the local news this evening.

Thanks for proving my point...

Only in your dreams

btw, do you wish to see the return of the 'ducking stool'...

Is that how you would deal with men who rape seven year old children?

Kin Liberals

I think you are missing the point.

I will 'defend' this person, well certainly his right to a fair trial.

Yes it is a horrible crime, and I hope he was suitably punished for it after his first conviction, but you can not use this highly evocative information to influence the decision of a jury.

They have to asses this case on it's own individual merits, and not what ever he may have previously done or not done.

If someone was in court for robbery, would you like the jury to be told how he has never had a conviction, or even a parking ticket to his name, when this might sway the jury to wrongly find him innocent?

 

[Johnmelad502]

Is that how you would deal with men who rape seven year old children?

I take it the answer was yes.

 

[ellal]

I take it the answer was yes.

You do love to make assumptions don't you and twist things...

a bit like the assumptions you expect a jury to make....

 

[dextrous]

Such crimes are the act of a disturbed person with a disturbed mind. Thus I am not entirely sure that "criminal" procedures should be used - surely a medical and psychiatric assessment needs to take place more that a criminal enquiry

 

[ColJack]

ignoring this particular case and looking at the overall theory..

you suggest that a persons previous crimes are taken into account when deciding their present guilt..