Rapist - not guilty - but guilty

[ajrtd]

Seems it would be left to the trial judge to decide if past convictions can be put to a jury.

http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Cases_-_Bad_character_2008

 

[imamartian]

but should the burden of proof be on the prosecuter?

I heard a cop recently say on tv, that the number of crims (sorry people) they catch with knife and balaclava that get off in court, over a technicality is huge...

 

[ellal]

but should the burden of proof be on the prosecuter?

of course it should...

otherwise why bother with a trial at all?...

 

[imamartian]

but should the burden of proof be on the prosecuter?

of course it should...

otherwise why bother with a trial at all?...

Ok, i accept the simplicity of the previous comment. However, there is a problem with the current system, whereby, hours of work by coppers, and regular offenders caught red=handed can be let off down to a loophole/clever lawyer/technicality etc.

Would it work with a two tiered system for genuine random crime, and your career crims?

I dunno, don't shoot me down, i'm just trying to spark debate...

 

[Johnmelad502]

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..

POVA = Protection of Vulnerable Adults

Referrals and checks made against the POVA list identify those people who are banned from working in a care position with vulnerable adults.

I fail to see how you conclude that this information is unproven?

As far as this individual and others like him are concerned (child rapists) when on trial for a new offence, fairness should not be a consideration.

As far as I am concerned, if these individuals were sentenced sufficiently at the first fair trial they would never leave prison to re-offend. Simples

 

[dextrous]

As far as this individual and others like him are concerned (child rapists) when on trial for a new offence, fairness should not be a consideration.

As far as I am concerned, if these individuals were sentenced sufficiently at the first fair trial they would never leave prison to re-offend. Simples

Well, sort of. Clearly sentencing should have two aspects - retribution being what the "string him up" attitude demands, but also utilitarian - in which case he should not have been released before him illness had been fully addressed, and certainly have been permanently electronically tagged to help prevent him from reoffending (the constant reminder to him may have swung him away from performing any such subsequent act).

Also, regular and mandatory counselling and psychiatric assessments should be made for the duration of his life. Expensive? So what - we're not talking about offences which simply cause a bit of unease and inconvenience for victims (as with, say burglary), but possible life changing outcomes, shame, fear etc etc.

 

[ellal]

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..

POVA = Protection of Vulnerable Adults

Referrals and checks made against the POVA list identify those people who are banned from working in a care position with vulnerable adults.

I fail to see how you conclude that this information is unproven?

In actual fact entries on POVA include allegations as well as convictions..

ALL allegations stay on file, even if they havn't been investigated or acted upon - that's what 'unproven' means...

As far as I am concerned, if these individuals were sentenced sufficiently at the first fair trial they would never leave prison to re-offend. Simples icon_mad.gif

As I've already said - but that is completely different from what you were arguing earlier!

 

[ellal]

but should the burden of proof be on the prosecuter?

of course it should...

otherwise why bother with a trial at all?...

Ok, i accept the simplicity of the previous comment. However, there is a problem with the current system, whereby, hours of work by coppers, and regular offenders caught red=handed can be let off down to a loophole/clever lawyer/technicality etc.

Would it work with a two tiered system for genuine random crime, and your career crims?

I dunno, don't shoot me down, i'm just trying to spark debate...

A loophole/technicality is actually part of the justice system..the case must be proven beyond doubt.

(otherwise plod lying could technically be called a loophole... )

either you follow the letter of the law (whether you agree or disagree with it), or you don't believe in law..

And we already have a two tier system - it's called the criminal court and the civil court...

 

[Deluks]

past guilt does not necesitate present guilt.

No, but if you are the defence lawyer and playing the good character "he/she could never possibly do such a thing" card, then you would be deceiving the jury, and a prosecutor should be able to refute that, using any information available.


I did jury service many years ago, we cleared a couple of holding a guy hostage in their house (false imprisonment), before beating and robbing him.

We'd decided 10/2 that the crime in question was too audacious to be plausible, (the victim was known to the defendants) and that the defence lawyer painted a picture of two honest hardworking down to earth people (the couple)

After the not guilty verdict was delivered, the judge asked us to remain seated while he 'dealt with another matter'

It turned out that he woman was in court that day for two reasons. One to attend the final day of her trial, the other to be sentenced for armed robbery of a newsagents, which she had done to feed her long term crack habit. and had been found guilty of in a previous trial.

We were gobsmacked. There was silence and blank expressions all round later on when 6 of the jury shared a lift back upstairs. We'd been 'had'

She got 7 years for the shop robbery, which is a fairly heavy sentence to what gets dished out these days. I pondered the notion that the judge may have 'upped' the sentence to take into account the fact that she got off the false improsonment charge.

 

[ellal]

Deluks

had you known of the 'history', would that have changed your verdict?

 

[Deluks]

Deluks

had you known of the 'history', would that have changed your verdict?

Undoubtedly. It was a tough decision to reach, the argument was strong on both sides. We gave them the benefit of the doubt simply because; who would be so stupid as to rob somebody that knows who you are and where you live? A crackheads desperation would've answered that one. Yet we had no idea they were addicts.

At the end of the day the jury use all the evidence presented to them to make a decision. I think that a prosecutor that simply came out with "oh he's done it before so he must be guilty this time as well" isn't going to win very many cases if the defence lawyer is doing a decent job.

 

[ellal]

Deluks

had you known of the 'history', would that have changed your verdict?

Undoubtedly.

Then it's simple really...

you wouldn't have made your decision on the facts of the case before you...

how would you know if the previous conviction had also been similarily decided or not?

to judge someone on previous behaviour means by default you also have to assume that there are no miscarriages of justice...

 

[Space cat]

-- 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.

That's a good argument. It's very difficult to commit rape, even with a condom (and how many rapists would bother), and not leave any DNA evidence at all.

The argument that "he did it before so it must have been him" is not a good one. From a detective's point of view, a previous offender will always be high on your list of prime suspects and this may lead you to ignore other leads. I can remember one case of a man convicted of a rape he couldn't possibly have committed. He suffered from a medical condition known as aspermia and therefore the sperm found in the victim couldn't have been his. (This was in the days before DNA tests.) Nevertheless, the police were so convinced of his guilt - and so determined to get a 'result' - that they discarded this vital piece of evidence. Meanwhile, the real rapist got away with it!

I'm in two minds about the non-disclosure of previous convictions rule. On the one hand, it denies the jury valid information. On the other, it may help prevent miscarriages of justice of the type I've just described. On balance, I think that previous convictions (NOT accusations) are relevant and, in this particular case, the lack of DNA evidence would still have won the day. Meanwhile, courts must operate within the law as it is written.

 

[ColJack]

very good point..

a guy robs another guy to get money to feed his kids and gets 3 months for it..
next alegation and the previous crime is read into evidence, not the mitigating circumstances, just the fact that he's been jailed before for theft...
it's a toss up whether he's guilty or not but the jury finds him gulty based on the fact that he's done it before..
next time he's accused, he's been convicted twice before so it's a no brainer.. he's obviously a career criminal irrespective of whether he really did it this time or not..
by the time it gets to the fourth or fith times, why even bother to have a trial, just assume he did it and jail him?

if even one time he's really innocent then there's no chance for him because the jury is already biased towards him..

 

[ellal]

I'm in two minds about the non-disclosure of previous convictions rule. On the one hand, it denies the jury valid evidence.

No it doesn't...

a criminal record is not evidence!

Meanwhile, the real rapist got away with it!

And that is often the case when plod is convinced they've 'got their man'...

for each miscarriage of justice there is the fact that there is someone out there who could commit a further offence - that kind of justice serves no-one!