Rapist - not guilty - but guilty

[gassafeman]

JML502, you are quite forceful if people disagree with you arent you.

Thanks coljack and ellal for at least giving this discussion a decent balance.

Paul

 

[Johnmelad502]

JML502, you are quite forceful if people disagree with you arent you.

Thanks coljack and ellal for at least giving this discussion a decent balance.

Paul

No. I just have strong convictions on this subject.

Are you a reincarnation of Soggywheetabix

 

[gassafeman]

A reincarnation of what? Just observing the thread, and commenting.
Can you explain further?

Paul

 

[Shytalkz]

Soggy: the father in law you would hope never to have.

Currently undergoing an intense bout of navel-gazing after trying and failing to rescue some kids from a fire.

 

[geraint]

this post actually proves that the jury system is flawed... but cannot be bettered... i would not like any of the posters on here to be on my jury..
believing before they hear the facts..

too much eastenders and coronation street....

 

[gassafeman]

Oh, OK. A poster who is a ****?

Did look for a post by Soggywheetabix but couldnt find one.
Anyway, sorry to offend was just giving an opinion.

Paul

 

[securespark]

Well, I'm going to disappoint you, JML, but I am in agreement with the

" 'kin Liberals " here.

 

[Deluks]

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...

There was other evidence presented. This missing info would've painted a much clearer picture and tipped the balance of opinion into what I now feel should've been a guilty verdict.

I don't see why "ok, you've done this before, tell us why it wasn't you this time" isn't a valid question to ask the accused. If they didn't do it they would have a decent and reasonable explanation why they aren't also guilty this time around.

Of course the prosecution would have to come up with other evidence to back up their accusation. Lets not forget motive, alibi, witness statements etc etc
That's what trials are all about, right?

 

[Space cat]

Just a passing thought which may or may not be relevant: Is it not true that witnesses can be asked if they have any previous convictions? If it is true, such information would surely affect the jury's view of their evidence.

-- a criminal record is not evidence!

You are correct. I've edited my post to say "information" instead.

 

[Johnmelad502]

Well, I'm going to disappoint you, JML, but I am in agreement with the

" 'kin Liberals " here.

Why would I feel disapointed? You did nothing unexpected.

 

[ellal]

There was other evidence presented. This missing info would've painted a much clearer picture and tipped the balance of opinion into what I now feel should've been a guilty verdict.

I don't see why "ok, you've done this before, tell us why it wasn't you this time" isn't a valid question to ask the accused. If they didn't do it they would have a decent and reasonable explanation why they aren't also guilty this time around.

Of course the prosecution would have to come up with other evidence to back up their accusation. Lets not forget motive, alibi, witness statements etc etc
That's what trials are all about, right?

But you've already said that you couldn't believe the 'audacious' crime because of (presumably) the lack of other evidence..

The prosecution didn't prove it's case, but in effect what you are saying is that they could turn round and say, " you probably won't believe our case, but they have done it before!"

Certainly not any justice system I'd want to be a part of because I know that I'd possibly be swayed by human nature as much as the next person!

Just a passing thought which may or may not be relevant: Is it not true that witnesses can be asked if they have any previous convictions? If it is true, such information would surely affect the jury's view of their evidence.

I believe the current position is that it is up to the judges discretion - hence the procedure of 'legal argument'..

 

[dextrous]

Just a passing thought which may or may not be relevant: Is it not true that witnesses can be asked if they have any previous convictions? If it is true, such information would surely affect the jury's view of their evidence.

I believe the current position is that it is up to the judges discretion - hence the procedure of 'legal argument'..

Is it not the case that witnesses can be asked about previous convictions in order that their character may be called into question?
Moreover, if the accused takes the stand, then (s)he is at that point a witness, and therefore could in theory be questioned about his/her own previous convictions

 

[ellal]

Is it not the case that witnesses can be asked about previous convictions in order that their character may be called into question?
Moreover, if the accused takes the stand, then (s)he is at that point a witness, and therefore could in theory be questioned about his/her own previous convictions

Firstly: "Generally, witnesses other than the defendant in a criminal case may be asked questions that suggest that the witness is not a credible one. However, if a witness is suggested to be mistaken, or lying, the cross-examiner may not produce evidence to prove that the person is lying where the matter is not directly relevant to the facts in issue, but only the credibility of the witness. These matters are said to be collateral to the facts in issue, and a witness’s answers in reply to such questions are treated as final. "

Secondly:"Evidence of previous convictions is considered to be too prejudicial to a defendant to be allowed, as a jury will assume that because the defendant has done it before, he/she will have done it again, and be guilty of the events in issue.

Where the similar fact doctrine applies, evidence of the details of previous convictions or commissions of crimes may be brought before the court. In addition, where the defendant’s good character has been raised, the prosecution may adduce evidence of a previous conviction (but only the fact of the conviction - not the details)"

Both are I believe still at the discretion of the judge in the end. That's why 'legal warnings' are often issued when certain questions are asked by both prosecution and defence.

 

[Trazor]

All of the above semantics pale into insignificance, when you consider the average intelligence of a Jury.

 

[ellal]

All of the above semantics pale into insignificance, when you consider the average intelligence of a Jury.

Do you include deluks in that?...