If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Guilty till proven innocent
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
In an effort to make sure that no-one has a fair trial anymore in the UK the government is bringing forward measures where previous convictions or even charges can be said in court.
Now this is said to have no impact upon the jury who will take the evidence infront of them. The question is then why do it?
This is clearly a measure which will colour the jury, its a vile and horrific idea.
A trial should only ever be based on the evidence concerning that one crime in question. If there isnt enough evidence then the person should walk, thats the price we should be more than willing to pay.
This also shows the governments attitude to rehabilitation, in that they assume that offendors will re-offend.
Thoughts?
Now this is said to have no impact upon the jury who will take the evidence infront of them. The question is then why do it?
This is clearly a measure which will colour the jury, its a vile and horrific idea.
A trial should only ever be based on the evidence concerning that one crime in question. If there isnt enough evidence then the person should walk, thats the price we should be more than willing to pay.
This also shows the governments attitude to rehabilitation, in that they assume that offendors will re-offend.
Thoughts?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Clear up rate'll look good if they just keep picking up old lags with a similar MO
Presumably previous convictions wouldn't be the basis of the prosecution case.
Me thinks you doth presume too much!
ut obviously on the other hand, if a jury knows s/o has already been charged/convicted of the same crime, i know the likelyhood of them finding the person guilty would increase tenfold.
Just because you have charges brought against you means NOTHING, lets try and remember that you are supposed to be inocent till proven guilty.
We might as well just allow hearsay or what the bloke down the pub said about the defendant to be allowed as evidence!
Trials should stand or fall on the crime in question ONLY.
Why include this unless its going to make convictions easier? This is a big step towards just having the balance of probability in courts.
Charges are also totally separate from being definatly found guilty. You can be charged with anything, and it never come to a trial. Even if it did, everything can be thrown out at any point by the judge based on lack of evidence, you may be found not guilty, being charged means nothing.
If the police can not come up with enough evidence then the person should walk, regardless of whether that person is 'gulity' or not.
I do agree with you mostly, it is deffo a bad idea. But you must admit, some people follow patterns, for example if i've smoked weed once, i am more likely to do it again, and to a certain extent this is the same with crimes, not always, but sometimes.
Also i would like to elaborate on my point about women's sexual history in rape cases, this shouldn't be allowed i believe, if the rapist's past sexual offences aren't.
Perhaps, but charges, not convictions, prove nothing but bad luck or a police officer that doesn't like you.
Charges and convictions are different and if we believe in rehabilitation of criminals then neither should be known before sentencing.
That was taken from information at the time. I may be confused, but I understood it as because he was charged with possible abuses against children he wasn't allowed to work with them. It's not my opinion.
I think thats how it works. To my mind though just having charges against you should mean nothing. You are 100% inocent until the charges are made to stick.
If a bloke has raped before, it makes him more likely to do it again. And even then it has to be convictions, not just charges.
It's a difficult one. So many men have raped before, then got off on other rape charges because of lack of evidence, when it is blatently obvious that he did it. Bringing his past conviction up would help the woman get the justice she requires, and, anyway, even if he's wrongly convicted the second time he fucking deserves it for being a rapist cunt.
My deep concern though is that this, as the phrase goes, is the thin end of the wedge.
improving vetting procedures at schools would be better ie recomendations for social services or something
often it isnt a lack of decent law, its a lack of decent procedure
personally rapists shouldnt have their convictions read out in court if tried again, unless its brough to the judges attention that the situation really does match his previous illegal behavoiur
There was an interesting letter in the paper today about using evidence of child pornography offences together with child sex abuse charges to create a case against a paedophile. The pornography was found on the defendants computer and used to show that the paedophile was sexually attracted to children. The defendant's case was based on his assertion that he was not attracted to children, but once the child porn evidence was produced, he pleaded guilty.
The classic example being the asset taking law. Which basically boils down to;
"We cant convict you of drug dealing so we're going to take your money, house and all your assets and you then have to prove that every penny was made legally or we take it all."
well that would probably be allowed now anyway, as it was...
the burden of factual proof should be enough to convict someone, if it isnt the persons either innocent, or the CPS/police need to better PROVE theyre guilty, not use a history to sway the jury
bring to mind that the CPS now have some lawyers in police stations so the police can consult them on what sort of evidence and statements would be best - slightly too off though as in a way its possible to prove anything