Should judges/jurors be told of previous criminal convictions?

Question

I think it is very relevant in a case of - say burglary ,that the judge and jury are told of previous convictions.All too often we find that after a burglar has been found guilty and sentenced to a trivial say week's community service it transpires he has a record of 30 previous convictions.It is blatantly obvious that he has n't learnt his lesson and won't while he is only given a 'slap on the wrist' sentence.Had the judge/jury known about the previous convictions there might by a chance he would be given a sentence that would fit what he is...a serial burglar.Victims of burglary do not think it is a trivial matter...burglars should be put behind bars for a long time to keep them off our streets.It is obvious they have no remorse or they would not keep on doing it.One conviction could be overlooked (we all make mistakes) but 10-30 NO.

Patches6...they are not allowed to ask or be told.In case they infringe the bu**er's human rights..DIDDUMS.

Answer 1

yea for repeat offenders defiantly some people get caught up in things that they don't mean to get into but don't do it again but these career criminal's should be given tougher jail terms.

Answer 2

I agree with you, to a point. But what if it isn't 30 convictions? What if it is 2 convictions, the burglar has seen the error of his ways and put the past behind him. Then there's a case of mistaken identity and he's hauled up before the courts again, for a crime he didn't commit? Even though he's now a born again christian and on the straight and narrow, with 7 mouths to feed????
Or what if it is someone who, as a youngster, slept with a girl under aged 15. Her parents press charges and he is up for rape, convicted and sentenced. Ten years later, could that influence another court case in which he is innocent?
You're supposed to be found guilty on the evidence as presented to the courts. However, I think the judge should be able to look at all the records and make a decision for himself, whether or not it is a serial offender.
And you're right, burglary isn't a trivial matter.

Answer 3

Let's just clarify this.

A Jury listens to the evidence on the case at hand and considers the verdict of guilty or not guilty. They don't decide the punishment.

A judge makes sure the trial is conducted according to law and without prejudice. A judge passes the sentence on the accused if the jury declare a guilty verdict.

A Judge can and does take all previous offences into account, as well as other circumstances.

A Jury doesn't know of any prior offences because they need to make a judgement only on the evidence presented for the offence being tried. If they were told that the accused has been on trial 5 previous times, it would slant their opinion and pre-judge the character of the accused.

It would be totally unfair.

If a person is guilty of a crime & the Police have done their job gathering evidence, then the person will go down.

It's a fair system and it works.

Answer 4

The judge will know of the person's criminal history. That will play into the sentencing portion of the trial if the person is convicted.

The jury, on the other hand, should not know the person's past. They are there to decide on the charges at hand. Because someone has a past criminal history does not pertain to whether they are innocent or guilty on the current charges.

if they are convicted, then the past convictions do play, and should play, an integral part in the sentencing for the current charge.

Answer 5

In English law, the presumption of innocence is the point at which every case must start.

Because a person may have a record of crimes in the past and even a conviction for the same crime for which he/she may now be charged with, does not prove that he/she dunnit!

Past convictions have no bearing what-so-ever on the new case against the accused. Details of an accused persons' previous criminal record should not be read out in court.

Answer 6

In most cases that i have been in during the summing up the defendants council will let it be known previous offences. A friend of mine had everything he had done from 18 to 38 printed out for all court officials to see. There is no such thing as spent convictions they are always on file and visible to the courts at the discrection of the judge

Answer 7

I would suggest that the Jury Foreman be given the details of previous convictions in a sealed envelope. This to be used only if there is a tied verdict. The Judge would be made aware that the information was used. He has to decide what sentence is to be passed.

Answer 8

It is a difficult question and one with three answers:
A. No, because it will prejudice the decision in whether or not the person is guilty
B. yes, because it is relevant info on the defendant (and not giving it makes people make false presumptions based on age, weight build dress and tattoos)
C. yes, because he/she should get a much bigger punishment/sentence the second time around

I find it hard to decide on my own, perhaps somebody will come up with good reasons.

Maybe the best thing is to disclose it after the guilty/not guilty decision but BEFORE the announcement of what the sentance/punishment is going to be this time around

Answer 9

I've got news for you all. If a person has relevant convictions (i.e. accused of burglary and has three recent burglary convitions) the jury are told. It's called "evidence of bad character" and was introduced by (I think) the 2003 Criminal justice Act.

Answer 10

Hi,

No, this would be wrong. The person would then be tried on the fact of previous offences not the charges he is in court for.

If convicted the judge will have a list of previous convictions that will be taken into consideration when sentencing.

Answer 11

in short, definite. on the visa waiver sort, the white on you're given on the airplane, it is going to ask in case you have had any previous convictions. given which you have been convicted, you desire a visa out of your u . s . a .'s US Embassy. there's no way you will get one in each and every week, the approach takes longer than that. As your conviction replaced into for fraud, and not drugs/terrorism/nazi and so on, you in all probability won't take place on the immigration radar, in case you have been to answer no on the visa wavier sort. maximum individuals with a prior conviction can pass to the u . s . a .. because of the fact Its relies upon on what you have been convicted for. those human beings frequently get a visa from a US embassy months forward. desire this facilitates.