Should previous crimes be announced in Court?

[The PIT]

My answer to that is no as it will effect the judgement of jurers.
This could send the wrong person to jail, allow the police to close the book and leave the guilty person at large to commit the crime again.

[Dr Mordrid]

That's how most all US laws have worked for ages. Each occurance is a separate event and the jury is to be protected from such prejudicial information.

The main exceptions are when someone's charged as being a habitual offender. Then the old info can be brought in to document this.

Most States have habitual offender laws that can be used to imprison someone for life, even if the offences are all different violations. The general rule is 3 felony convictions and bye-bye.

Dr. Mordrid

[The PIT]

This question always seems to come up when somebody re-offends doing the same crime. At the moment it's topical in Britain becuase of the Sarah Payne case and the fact that the guy had done it before and got a very small sentance. Four years out in two when the medical and parol people knew he would offend again. It's perhaps the sentacing in the orginal case that should be looked at or that cases should be reviewed with the ability to extend the sentace if the guy is going to be a danger to the public.

[Rags]

In the US, previous crimes and arrests aren't brought into evidence unless the defendant brings up his character as evidence, for example, he brings in several people testifying he couldn't do such a crime, then the prosecution can bring evidence to counter it.

Otherwise, previous criminal records are not admissable, the case has to be proven on its own facts.

Rags

[cjolley]

After a conviction though, all that can be brought up for sentencing.
chuck

[Rags]

Originally posted by cjolley
After a conviction though, all that can be brought up for sentencing.
chuck

Of course. We are not talking about sentencing.

Rags

[RedRed]

Currently you cant mention previous crimes in court in the UK until the person is found guilty. This is under question because of Sarah Payne.

It has an intresting knock-on effect.
The Police are accused of forcing a mis-trial here in Northern Ireland by doing just that in the trial of Mr Stobbie a couple of weeks ago. Stobbie was a police informer who was working for one division of the force. Another branch charged him with the murder of Pat Mr Finucane, a civil rights lawyer here.
It is claimed that at his trial, the special branch then intentionally named his previous crimes in court, which forced a re-trial. in the intervening weeks, the crown dropped the case because the key witness was now 'too ill'....

Mr Stobie was assinated last night, was it for being an informer, or was it to cover Police involvement in Loyalist Paramilitaries (suggested by some news papers)?

Northern Ireland is still F**ked up...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/to...s/1front.shtml


Additional article asking about Police department f**kups - 29 people dead in a village bombing....
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/to...s/2front.shtml

RedRed

[Paulr]

Personally I feel no, past crimes should not be bought up in court.
Everybody is entitled to a fair trial.
If somebody is on trial for whatever offence and the jury hears that he did the same x amount of years ago then it really would sway them.
Inocent people could go down and that really isn't fair.

Past crimes really shouldn't effect people, they made a mistake once, why should they suffer for the rest of their lives?
Currently in the UK we have the 'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act' which says that after 5 years an offence becomes 'spent'.
You don't have to tell potential employers about it and if they decide to do a background check on you they wont find out about it.
It gives people who have made that one mistake in life the chance to put it behind them and get on with life.
That is until some 'scum' of a newspaper attempts to ruin somebody else's life by dragging up a criminal offence from some 10 years ago.

[The PIT]

Another reason why I'm against it is because the media sweep such a frenzy the police arrest the wrong person on his past record and then make the evidance fit.
I remember one case in where a young girl got brutaly raped by a perv. The local press went crazy the police arrested one guy who had been a perv in the past and even rigged the latest dna testing. The case went all the way into court before the person who did stood up and admitted the crime in court. The press lost interest in the case striaght after so I don't know what the police enquiry turned up if anything.
If the previous crimes had been mentioned and the actual offender hadn't stood up another girl would have been raped.