Loosing more rights

At the present time when anyone is charged and has to appear before a court, no previous convictions are allowed to be mentioned until they are convicted of the crime they are being tried for on that day. The current position is that the prosecution has to use evidence from that case alone to convince a jury that the person is guilty. The Government is now proposing to remove that basic protection and to allow juries to hear about and be influenced by previous convictions and not current facts. This undermines the basic principle of British Justice that a person is innocent until proved guilty.

[dellym]

whilst i understand your concerns i think that basically a person should lose the right for past convictions being kept quiet til the end of trial purely because they broke the law in the first place BUT i do only think disclosures should be made in the case of serious crime such as violence, murder,sex etc. I think we have the right to know.

[grannyclaret]

i agree with dellym on this one , i think the law IS an ass on many occasions

[dellym]

and to add to this..if a person is being convicted again and again it proves that sentencing is too lenient. Life should mean life. End of story..i know the daughter of a murder victim and to hear that the person who murdered your mother is being released to continue his life must be horrific.

[wayneyboy1942]

I once did jury service and it's very hard to get to the truth of a case as both sides treat it like a game. They can make black look like white yes sound like no and people get off because they have very clever lawyers, One bloke had a file a mile long and if he had got off I would have been letting down the future victims of this man. As i say it's a game.

Thanks you have all proved my point of why I think it is so wrong. Even someone who has committed a crime or crimes on previous occasions can be innocent of the one he is being tried for. You would have condemned him not for something he was guilty of, but because he has a record. If he was innocent on this occasion, it means someone else is guilty and is getting off scott free, is that justice?
The previous convictions are brought up after the verdict and before the sentence is passed at the present time so they can be taken into account and rightly so.

[dellym]

maybe if sentencing in the first place was correct then we wouldnt have such views...having been the victim of and also know the victims of violent or sex crimes i have these views because i know about guilty people who have escaped conviction. How a person can violate another person, rape, murder etc and then be sentenced to say 12 years and be out after 5 for "good behaviour" makes my blood boil!!
I dont give a damn about good behaviour inside!! They did their worst on the outside and should remain in!!

I accept your point Delly, but sentencing is a separate issue and nothing to do with a Jury. They are people with probably similar experiences as your own and could be influenced by knowing of a past conviction when they are reaching a verdict.
Say you had been fined for speeding in the past and another fine would take you into the points situation where you could loose your licence. On this occasion a mistake has been made and you weren't speeding at all, would you think it fair that you lost your licence because of past convictions?

[dellym]

yes but the new system according to what i read will only involve serious crime and not minor speeding offences etc. So i still stick with my view that serious crime convictions should be disclosed...thet lose the right to privacy when they commit the crime...sorry nessie but i feel very strongly bout this.

Delly at the moment that is all that is proposed, but it is the thin edge of the wedge and leaves the way open for other crimes to be added at a later date.
I appreciate that you feel strongly about these certain crimes, but other people may feel just as strongly about different crimes, for instance Matty and the damage to his car. So where do you draw the line?
Do you not agree that anyone should be presumed innocent until proved ( by evidence not past convictions) guilty?

[Digsyboy]

Sorry, but I don't think it is so clear cut Nessie.

One of the most traumatic "little" crimes is burglary. and yet a "good" (hmmmm)Solicitor can paint a very sorry tale for this "poor little lamb, who has had a hard life and was driven to it by poverty and a single parent" etc etc etc
This can dupe a jury into thinkin Let him off, he won't do it again. he's learnt his lesson.
THEN you find out he's done 40 - 50 times before. - How would you feel.
I am sorry but previous RELEVANT convictions for ALL court appearances should be read out, and the jury be made aware. This is not taking anything away from the defendent but "giving" the jury a better chance of a CORRECT decision

Off my soapbox now

The point you all seem to be missing is that if a person has been convicted in the past for a crime of whatever description, they have been punished for it already in a court in a court of law. You can't punish someone twice for the same offence which is what in reality will be happening if the prosecution is allowed to use this information. His past offences are of no relevance to the case that is being heard until it comes to sentence. The jury should make their decision on the facts of that particular case placed before them, not be influenced by what has happened in the past.
As to the lawyers for the defence, of course they try to put the opposite side of the picture, that is what they are there for after all. Wouldn't you expect your lawyer to plead your case if it were you in the dock?

You have a poor view of people if you think a jury can be 'duped' by the defence lawyer, but if that is so can't they also be 'duped' by the prosecution or is that right in your eyes?

[TMC]

I can see your point Nessie that the persons convicted have already been sentenced and should not be judged on another crime if they,ve done the time,but i do feel in relevant cases the jury should be given past convictions as time and time again you see repeated offenders in Newspapers getting away with a ticking off. So obviously the system is,nt working.

But the jury don't pass the sentence only decide innocence or guilt, it is up to the judge to sentence and he can only do that within the limits laid down by law.
So it is the lawmakers who should toughen the sentences that may be given out as that seems to be the concern of most of you. Not make a travesty of the British justice system by implying a person is guilty just because they have had previous convictions. It is up to the police to provide the prosecution with sufficient evidence to convince the jury.

[dellym]

Credit the jury with some sense then. The jury can make an informed decision...fully informed of all the facts and previous convictions for RELATED offences.