This is an issue that has long bugged me. I have no legal training so I’d appreciate any comments from lawyers or law students who could correct or confirm my understanding.
Once “patterns based evidence” was admissible in our law courts. Now it usually isn’t.
To illustrate; say a man was on trial for burglary and arson. He was apprehended near a break- in wearing green rubber gloves and carrying a small chisel and a cigarette lighter.
He has three previous convictions for burglary/arson. Each time previously he wore green rubber gloves, gained entry by using a chisel and started the fire with a lighter.
He is put on trial and the “patterns based evidence” is enough to convince the jury to convict.
Eliminate “patterns based evidence” and a conviction becomes far less likely. The jury can only consider the fact that he was wearing gloves and carrying a chisel and lighter. They are not allowed to know anything about his past criminal patterns, or even convictions.
Past behaviour is the best indication of future behaviour. If a man has been convicted for a previous rape and is on trial for another; why should the jury not be entitled to know about his past proven offending?
Conversely, if a woman complains of rape, but has a record of making false complaints to the police about other matters, why should a jury be denied this knowledge?
To limit a jury’s knowledge to only the facts of the case before them is to reduce their ability to make sound judgments.
It is a recipe for injustice. The readmission of “patterns based evidence” into the legal system would give jurors a far more comprehensive view of the cases before them.
It isn’t politically correct to allow a defendant’s or complainant’s past record into court, but it is fair and just.
Any comments from lawyers, law students or “bush lawyers”?
徵信社 徵信社徵信社 徵信社徵信社 徵信社徵信社 徵信社徵信社 徵信社徵信社 徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社
徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社 徵信社徵信社 徵信社徵信社 徵信 徵信徵信 徵信徵信徵信徵信 徵信
徵信 徵信 徵信 徵信徵信 徵信 徵信 徵信徵信 徵信 徵信 徵信徵信 徵信 徵信 徵信徵信 徵信 徵信 徵信徵信 徵信 徵信 徵信徵信 徵信 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇問題 外遇問題 外遇問題
外遇問題 外遇問題 外遇問題 外遇問題 外遇問題 外遇問題外遇蒐證 通姦 通姦 通姦通姦 通姦通姦 通姦 通姦 通姦 通姦通姦 劈腿 劈腿 劈腿劈腿 劈腿 劈腿 找人找人尋人 尋人 尋人尋人 尋人 尋人尋人 尋人 尋人尋人 尋人 尋人
尋人 尋人 尋人尋人 尋人 尋人尋人 尋人 尋人工商調查 工商調查 工商調查商業調查抓姦 抓姦 抓姦抓姦抓姦 抓姦抓姦 抓姦 抓姦 抓姦抓姦 抓姦 抓姦抓猴 抓猴 抓猴 抓猴 捉猴 捉猴 捉猴
捉猴 捉猴 捉姦 捉姦 捉姦 捉姦捉姦捉姦 捉姦 捉姦 捉姦 捉姦 捉姦
捉姦 家庭暴力婚外情 婚外情 婚外情 婚外情 婚外情 婚外情 婚外情 婚外情婚外情 婚外情 婚外情 婚外情第三者偵探 偵探 偵探 偵探 偵探偵探 偵探 偵探 偵探 偵探 偵探偵探 偵探 偵探偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 偵探社 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探私家偵探 私家偵探
私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探
私家偵探 私家偵探 私家偵探 包二奶 包二奶包二奶 包二奶 包二奶 包二奶 包二奶 大陸包二奶 大陸包二奶 大陸包二奶 大陸包二奶 大陸包二奶大陸包二奶 大陸包二奶 大陸包二奶 大陸包二奶 大陸包二奶 感情挽回 感情挽回 感情挽回 感情挽回 感情挽回 感情挽回 感情挽回 感情挽回 感情挽回 婚姻挽回 婚姻挽回 婚姻挽回
婚姻挽回 婚姻挽回 婚姻挽回 婚姻挽回 婚姻挽回 婚姻挽回 婚姻挽回 婚姻挽回 婚姻 婚姻 婚姻 婚姻
婚姻 婚姻 離婚 離婚 離婚 離婚 離婚 離婚 離婚證人 離婚證人離婚證人離婚證人 離婚證人
徵信公司徵信公司 徵信公司徵信公司 徵信公司徵信公司 徵信公司徵信公司 徵信公司徵信公司 徵信公司徵信公司 徵信公司徵信公司 徵信公司徵信公司 徵信公會
徵信公會 徵信公會 徵信公會徵信公會 徵信公會徵信公會 徵信公會徵信公會 婚前徵信婚前徵信 婚前徵信 婚前徵信 婚前徵信婚前徵信 婚前徵信婚前徵信 婚前徵信婚前徵信 婚前徵信 婚前徵信 婚前徵信 婚前徵信工商徵信 工商徵信工商徵信 工商徵信 工商徵信 工商徵信工商徵信 工商徵信 工商徵信 工商徵信工商徵信 工商徵信商業徵信 商業徵信 商業徵信 商業徵信
商業徵信 商業徵信 商業徵信 商業徵信商業徵信 商業徵信商業徵信 商業徵信 商業徵信 商業徵信商業徵信 商業徵信商業徵信 徵信服務 徵信服務
徵信服務 徵信服務 徵信服務 徵信服務 徵信服務 徵信服務 徵信服務 徵信服務 徵信服務 徵信服務 徵信業 徵信業 徵信業
Unintended consequences.
If the rule about prior bad acts was changed and everything else stayed the same it might be an improvement. A few more innocent people and a lot more guilty people would be convicted.
But everything else might not stay the same.
When a crime was committed and the police had no solid leads, they could just pick up anyone who happened to be in the area, had no alibi and had previous convictions for similar acts. I’ll bet they could trot out the list of those previous convictions and a jury would quite often return a guilty verdict without much evidence linking the specific defendant with the crime.
I am torn on this issue. I think of the case in which I sat on a jury (detailed here) where very little evidence was entered by either side as to the character of the accused, and yet, essentially, we had to decide their motivation, which was a character issue having very little to do with the facts (which were largely undisputed). Information about past convictions or past actions would have been of huge assistance to us.
That said, past cases should not take precedence over facts and circumstances as they stand by themselves, because past behaviour is not always indicative. I am inclined to think perhaps judges should be allowed more leeway in what is disclosed to juries, but I don’t think there should be a mandatory disclosure.