Do you agree or disagree,and what's the reason for your answer?

Question

Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant's past criminal record.This protects person who is being accused of the crime.
Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed and that a jury should be given all the past facts before they reach their decision about the case.

Do you agree or disagree?Give reasons for your answer.

Answer 1

I am torn on this matter! In a way I agree, however, in a way I disagree strongly. I would hate to think that by not giving me a person's past I make a blind decision without knowing all of the facts. I consider a persons past part of all of the facts surrounding the person. However, I do believe that people can change. BUT, in order to have changed, I feel you must prove it, through your actions! Any and every criminal will say they are innocent and falsely accused and that they have changed. However, most times, that isn't the case. I would have a hard time living with myself if I had let a child molester go free, even though he had done this in the past, and I made a decision to let him go because I hadn't known about his past offenses. And he got off simply because of poor evidence, and was free to do this again.
However, I would hate to think that a person being accused of murder is going to be falsely sentenced because he shoplifted 15 years ago, so the jury felt he was already a criminal, and found him guilty.
It's a difficult topic and there is no black or white answer, it's more of a grey area in the middle. In some cases and when dealing with some charges, I think a person's past is necessary to establish their character. However, in some cases, a person's past may prejudice a jury in an unfavorable manner.
I'm not certain, as of now, what the law is in the USA, but I think that if a person has been convicted for a crime previously, not just charged, then it should be avaiable for jurors to know! I also think that maybe it would help to outline the offenses that warrant the release of previous history. Ex. A minor offense shouldn't need previous history, however a murder or sexual offense should require a release of previous criminal history and personal character.

Answer 2

Today, a jury may learn of a defendant's past convictions under some limited circumstances: If the defendant himself testifies and the information is used to impeach his credibility, or if it is introduced for one of several other narrow purposes permitted by state law. Ironically, the jurors may also be told about past convictions if the defendant wants them to know. For example, some lawmakers worry that a defendant in a state with a "three strikes, you're out" law might introduce his own prior convictions to deter a sympathetic jury from convicting him for a third time, thereby sending him to jail for life.

When jurors know the entire picture, they do place an emphasis on criminal records. In a study conducted by leading jury researchers Valerie Hans and Anthony Doob, 30 simulated juries were asked to decide a hypothetical burglary case: A woman's house was broken into and $200 was stolen. A short time later, a man was found in the neighborhood with $200 in his glove compartment. The defendant's girlfriend, however, testified in court that she was with him at the time the crime occurred. Half were told of the defendant's criminal record, which included several burglary convictions, and half were not. Of the panels left in the dark, not one convicted. But among the better informed juries, the conviction rate was nearly one-half.

Proponents of withholding criminal records from jurors argue that a record is irrelevant. Just because a person robbed one bank doesn't mean he robbed a second. This is true enough, but to say that the information is useless ignores the conclusion of many criminologists that someone who is convicted of a crime is very, very likely to commit a second. According to a 1991 Justice Department study, over 60 percent of criminals released from prison will be rearrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor. Even that high a rate is dwarfed by the recidivism rates of certain kinds of criminals, such as sex offenders. And those are only the ones who get caught. Unfortunately, courtroom procedure swerves away from this point where science and common sense agree, sometimes with tragic consequences.

Take the 1992 case of Colin James Evans, the proprietor of a child-care center for impoverished children in England, who was charged with child molestation. Molestation is a notoriously difficult crime to prove, and most cases come down to whom the jury trusts more, the child (or the child's parents) or the defendant. The defense argued that Evans was in fact a good-hearted man who chose his profession because he cared for the welfare of children. Why would he harm them? England is one of the only countries in Europe with the same restrictions on evidence as our own. Consequently, the jury did not know that Evans had already been convicted several times of the same crime. As a result of their ignorance, the jury acquitted Evans. Not long afterward, he struck again - only this time he killed the boy after molesting him.

Answer 3

I agree that the jury should be given all information about a defendant's past. Unfortunately it's the same here in the U.S.

The reason I think a defendant's past is relevant is, because, it's a pretty fair representation of their character. The defendant's attorney will paint the accused as a victim who's fallen on hard times. However, nobody decides to wake up and become a criminal there are ususally signs one can look for in their past.

More to the point, if a jury has full knowledge of a defendant's past they can potentially use that inforamtion to help the defendant get help and it could be a useful tool in the sentencing phase.

Answer 4

Well in the US sometimes prior bad acts of defendant's are kept out of said trial because they would sway the jury to one side or the other. You have to remember, at least here you are innocent until proven guilty and this safeguard is in tact to make sure that poor judgement in the past does not continue to haunt a defendant. Now in some cases, yes, courts rule that prior information can be admissible but it depends on the case and the charges. This also is applied to witnesses and therefore too protects them when they testify, so they are not discredited as well.

Answer 5

They should keep past activity a secret, it will bias jurors. If someone is accused of murder, and they have a history of theft, they might be found guilty because the jurors perceived the individual as a criminal. The only important details concerning a case are the facts surrounding the case, whatever happened in the past would be unfair to admit as evidence. I might make an exception if there are similarities, like similar style murders, or similar weapons used, etc... I don't think criminal history of a person should in general be used in a trial unless it is relevant.

Answer 6

Sounds like a good idea to keep the jury ignorant. It would be interesting to hear the reasoning of the lawyers you refer to. It might be a moot point, meaning that some innocent people would then be convicted by their past, and some guilty people would be let go because of their's. It would definitely muddy the water and add trial length, and I feel like the jury is to decide about a crime, not a person.

Answer 7

I disagree. Committing a crime in the past does not mean you are guilty in the future. Now during sentencing, if the perp is found guilty, then yes his past record should come into play. But once you've convicted someone of a crime it should be the only time that person is convicted of THAT crime. Bringing it up in a criminal proceeding in the future on a different crime would be kind of like trying that person twice for the same crime, which we all know is not a legal thing to do, the whole double jeopardy thing. But as I've said, if he is convicted, then his past criminal record should be brought up in the sentencing portion of the trial. Thanks and have a nice day.

Answer 8

I am a lawyer in California, USA... certain facts of a defendant's past crimes may tend to inflame or unreasonably prejudice a jury. It is entirely possible, for example, for a criminal to mend his ways and become a productive member of society. The facts of a specific case should stand on their own merits to prove guilt or innocence for a particular crime.

However, if a defendant is found guilty, then past criminal record should be taken into account for sentencing.

Answer 9

I believe that past history should be involved in the proceedings. Why? Several reasons:

-- past offenders are more likely to offend again
-- it allows the jury to see what this person is really like, not just the front he is presenting to the court
-- it shows the jurty that this person has made no attempts to change their behavior or to adjust to society
-- sometimes (imo, always) it is more important to protect the victim than the criminal... in cases of rape, for example, past offenses are vital to helping establish a pattern of behavior
-- I honestly feel that the more you commit crime, the more punished you should get. It shouldn't just be a slap on the wrist for this robbery, 2 years for this crime, probation for that crime... it should be the summation of all crimes... at this point this person needs to be removed from society as they are a serious threat

Answer 10

I do not think it should be changed. Here in the US we don't allow evidence of prior bad acts because there is always the possibility of change in a person's personality and life. If you do something bad when you are young and you have changed your life, do you want someone knowing that if you are falsely accused of something else? Your chances of being convicted wrongly go up incredibly. It is a public policy that the risk of putting innocent people in jail is worth avoiding if a few guilty people get off as well.