Actually (even though it might appear to denegrate my argument) I'd like to point out that this is already allowed...
so the status of a person's criminal record should not be disclosed either way imo...
so the status of a person's criminal record should not be disclosed either way imo...
J
Johnmelad502
You do love to make assumptions don't you and twist things...
a bit like the assumptions you expect a jury to make....
And of course you never make assumptions do you?
If you note, I said 'maybe' and inserted '?'... that's called a question in case you don't understand...
you of course assumed outright
Get it right if you want to play semantics...
those aren't assumptions, they're extrapolations based on your overall tone regarding this case and the comments you've made as to locking him up just for breathing..
as I've said before, you were not on the jury ( see, that's an assumption ), so you have no idea what evidence was presented to them..
maybe the defense had recipts for him from a petrol filling station and a travellodge 60 miles away for the time that the attacks took place giving him a cast iron alibi?
as I've said before, you were not on the jury ( see, that's an assumption ), so you have no idea what evidence was presented to them..
maybe the defense had recipts for him from a petrol filling station and a travellodge 60 miles away for the time that the attacks took place giving him a cast iron alibi?
J
Johnmelad502
In cases such as this, yes, the jury should have all of the facts in front of them.
When you apply for certain jobs, your employer in entitled to ask you for details of previous convictions. This allows them to make an informed decision.
In certain circumstances (spent Convictions) you can have a conviction and legally answer no to the question, "do you have any criminal convictions" (though some are never spent).
When a jury comes their decision, why should they not have all of the facts before them?
The facts of the particular case yes..
supposition based on previous behaviour, no..
therefore I repeat the point that it is in emotive cases that this argument is put forward..
In actual fact, if a crb is required that overrides the rehabilitation of criminals act - all convictions are disclosed.
they had all the relavent facts..
if you were accused of theft, should the jury be made aware of your theft from a collection plate?
a testemony from you school teachers that you were always disruptive in class and ended up in detention more than once?
sword afadavid from a previous employer that you used to fiddle the expenses for a few extra miles on the petrol allowance?
past guilt does not necesitate present guilt.
if you were accused of theft, should the jury be made aware of your theft from a collection plate?
a testemony from you school teachers that you were always disruptive in class and ended up in detention more than once?
sword afadavid from a previous employer that you used to fiddle the expenses for a few extra miles on the petrol allowance?
past guilt does not necesitate present guilt.
J
Johnmelad502
No they did not.
Accusations are not the same as convictions [/quote]
Not admissible]
Slander, not admissible.
True, but should be a consideration.
so you believe guilty until proven inocent?
if your missus sank and drowned when thrown into a lake, she's not a witch, if she floats she is and should be burned at the stake?
if your missus sank and drowned when thrown into a lake, she's not a witch, if she floats she is and should be burned at the stake?
You know Johnmelad, it seems to me that you're getting all 'hot and bothered' over the wrong issue...
If a guy has raped a 7yr old, then the fact that his original sentence allowed him out to allegedly commit another offence is the problem...
a conviction for the original crime should imo mean the key should be thrown away...
so your assumption about being 'liberal' is also wrong...
But I also just happen to believe in a fair trial!
If a guy has raped a 7yr old, then the fact that his original sentence allowed him out to allegedly commit another offence is the problem...
a conviction for the original crime should imo mean the key should be thrown away...
so your assumption about being 'liberal' is also wrong...
But I also just happen to believe in a fair trial!
I was convicted of theft of a car when I was 16. I stole it to go joy riding.
Today, 25 years later, I am in court accused of stealing a car. I took it without the owners consent to rush my elderly mother to hospital, and returned it to him the following day.
Why should the jury be told about my previous conviction? It has no relevence to this particular case.
Today, 25 years later, I am in court accused of stealing a car. I took it without the owners consent to rush my elderly mother to hospital, and returned it to him the following day.
Why should the jury be told about my previous conviction? It has no relevence to this particular case.
J
Johnmelad502
Thank you for making my point for me. If an employer can know all previous convictions before making a decision, why should a jury be kept in the dark?
exactly.. if he was convicted the first time they should have cut his gonads off.. and his penis too.. leave him with a 1 inch stump to pee through..
the fact he got off this time indicates that there was insufficient evidence to convince the "12 good men and true" of the jury that he was guilty this time....
the fact he got off this time indicates that there was insufficient evidence to convince the "12 good men and true" of the jury that he was guilty this time....
because an employer is not making a decision that would see someone locked up based on that knowledge, the worst they can do with it is decide to not hire that person...
do you have your theft from a collection plate listed on your CV?
No it doesn't
a job application is a completely different matter from a criminal trial, and imo the scope of a crb check is too wide for the same reasons...
I suspect that you agree with the POVA database then? - if you don't know what that is, it's a database for certain occupations that includes unproven (and often unacted upon) allegations against those who may work with children or vulnerable people..
