Much of the legal opposition to the change is, I suspect, self-interested. (Magistrates tended to see previous, and were expected to disregard it. So past actions are taken into account regardless: the changes just ensure that the jury's picture is an accurate one.
Previously, if a defendant & their counsel boxed clever, they could leave a jury with the impression that the defendant had never been in trouble with the law, when in fact they'd notched up dozens of convictions, often for the same crime. The defendant's past conduct is directly relevant to that consideration. Once the material facts are established, it comes down to whether the jury or magistrate believe the defendant has committed the crime. This is a longstanding principle: character witnesses can appear, and try to convince jurors or magistrates that the defendant isn't the sort of person to have comitted the alleged crime. They allow the court to take his or her previous actions into account when judging the facts before the court. No, and the changes don't judge a defendant's character. Strontium Dog wrote:Is justice served by judging the defendant's character rather than judging the case on its own merits? Strontium Dog Banned User Name: Dan Posts: 13820 Age: 43 Is justice served by judging the defendant's character rather than judging the case on its own merits? There's never been an absolute ban: it was previously allowed if the facts of the case presented a "striking similarity" to a previous conviction, but that was a narrow criteria, hardly ever employed. Justice isn't served by setting up a firewall of ignorance.īyron wrote:This is no longer the case, as the law was changed to allow evidence of "bad character" a few years back. The dangers of the police fitting up the usual suspects can be remedied in other ways, like preliminary hearings, and exemplary prosecutions of corrupt officers. If s/he's up for burglary, I think the jury is entitled to know that s/he has 20 previous convictions for the same offence. It's argued that the jury should focus on the facts of that specific case, but the defendant's past informs the case before the court. Just as I don't think the jury need be ignorant of the case prior to trial, nor do I think they need to be ignorant of the fact that the defendant has a record longer than Southend Pier. I break with most civil libertarians in approving of the change. This is no longer the case, as the law was changed to allow evidence of "bad character" a few years back. Mrjonno wrote:Generally previous criminal records are not relevant in a trial except for sentencing (at least in the UK) you are judged on the facts of the crime itself. If we can give some suspects anonymity we can do it for them all. This does not mean that the press are stifled, it just means that we get closer to a fairer jury and not having the lives of falsely accused people ruined by paid gossip-mongers.
While I am not saying we should censor the press, if we truly beleive that people should be considered innnocent until judged otherwise and have a fair trial it behooves us to give suspects anonymity. Once having invested time upon reading such news (often heavily agendised in the first place) in order to construct opinion it does not seem to me that many of those involved in such speculation would easily shed their bias in the face of evidence, rather those who see it would either deny it's relevance (if it is contrary to the bias they have) or use it to further legitimise such bias. Some grainy heavily edited footage and some testimony from biased witnesses has lead to a lot of outrageous pro and anti-Israeli sentiment and breathtakingly dumb conjecture in which people are making claims about boat loads of Suicidal Jihadists and Israeli troops acting like Darth Vader's stormtroopers, based on very little. I don't think we need to look very far to see evidence of this. To me it seems that media fuelled preconceptions about suspects can be so overwhelming as to deeply influence such trials.
You may think that, perhaps I'm more cynical. Many voices can be raised, by people who have different degrees of separation from the issues. Byron wrote:Overcompensation is a worry, but that's why we have a dozen jurors.
0 kommentar(er)
