Should juries be told?

[awa355]

I know this subject has been covered before, but I'm that pissed off that I'm going to have a rant, then go for a ride.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11137506

" But Justice Panckhurst concluded that McLaughlin was "on the brink, but not quite crossing the line" of receiving a non-parole term.

I guess 'only' killing two children doesn't quite qualify for permanent imprisonment.

Why can't the jury be made aware of an accused's previous offences?

If David Tamahere was charged with murder tomorrow, everyone would know of his previous history?

[oldrider]

Panckhurst should have had the balls to go over the brink too! Justice NZ is a bloody joke! :sick: (Sorry ... "YES" to your question!)

[Madness]

You seem to be confusing two separate issues, the Jury's knowledge (or lack) of previous history has no bearing on a Judges sentencing decision. I can understand & share your frustration in this case but I still believe that the Jury should not be given a Defendant's history as that undermines our entire criminal justice system. Next thing we'll bring back stoning & burning, hopefully.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yes*

*If it's relevant to the case

[Scuba_Steve]

that undermines our entire criminal justice system.

:blink: wait! that's still possible?

[Madness]

:blink: wait! that's still possible?

I agree, it's a joke - the system. Dishing out a list of criminal convictions to the Jurors at the commencement of a trial might as well be coupled with a series of rock-paper-scissors to decide whom from the Jury gets to play Judge.

We give Juries this information and all we'll get is more innocents being jailed, just like Bain, Pora, et al.

[Banditbandit]

No, they should not. The fact that someone has committed a similar offence in the past is no good indication that they have committed the offence that they are currently on trial for.

The prosecution needs to prove that the person on trial committed the offence they are charged with - that must be done on the evidence of that crime - not some past crime. Knowledge of past crimes could bias trhe jury against the person standign trial.

The risk of a miscarriage of justice is hugely increased ...

[Banditbandit]

If David Tamahere was charged with murder tomorrow, everyone would know of his previous history?


Would they??? Do you ??

[awa355]

Would they??? Do you ??


Can you really see Tamahere ( or any other high profile offender ) appearing in court and the media not knowing?

Juries are instructed to base their decision on the facts presented to them in that particular case. They know that.

[Flip]

No definately not.

The case has to stand on its own. If some high profile crim is in court they just have to choose the jury carefully.

[mashman]

Next thing we'll bring back stoning & burning, hopefully.

Should that not be burning then stoning?

[Jantar]

In gneral I do not agree with juries being told of previous convictions. However, if a previous conviction is relevent, and/or motive, for the case then that conviction should be told.

Consider someone being convicted based on eyewitness evidence. That eyewitness is subsequently murdered, and the convict is acused of having arranged the murder from prison. Then the conviction is the motive and must be presented to the jury.

[Berries]

The fact that someone has committed a similar offence in the past is no good indication that they have committed the offence that they are currently on trial for.
Oh I don't know. For quite a lot of crimes I would say that committing the offence previously would be a very good indication that they committed the same crime again, if there is some evidence rather than it simply being a fit up because a crime happened that fit the particular MO of the particular perp. See, I watch Kojak.

Then again, I did say evidence which is where the New Zealand system appears to fall down occasionally. Perhaps the judge who does know all the previous should be able to tell the jury they were wrong and the defendant is guilty? I call Judge Dredd to the stand.

[Banditbandit]

Can you really see Tamahere ( or any other high profile offender ) appearing in court and the media not knowing?

Juries are instructed to base their decision on the facts presented to them in that particular case. They know that.

Of course the media would know - but there are laws covering what the media can say and print ... and previous convictions are illegal to use in a story during a trial ...

But seriously, what do you think you know of Tamahere's past? Do you know he killed Sven Urban Höglin, Heidi Birgitta Paakkonen ??? I certainly know he was convicted of it - but I seriously doubt he did it. Is there anything else you think you know???

[Banditbandit]

Oh I don't know. For quite a lot of crimes I would say that committing the offence previously would be a very good indication that they committed the same crime again, if there is some evidence rather than it simply being a fit up because a crime happened that fit the particular MO of the particular perp. See, I watch Kojak.

No, I disagree. A good indication is never proof beyond reasonable doubt ... and yes, it might be a good indication that they commited a similar crime again ... but still not proof or a good indication that they committee the actual crime they are standing trial for ..


Then again, I did say evidence which is where the New Zealand system appears to fall down occasionally. Perhaps the judge who does know all the previous should be able to tell the jury they were wrong and the defendant is guilty? I call Judge Dredd to the stand.

Judge's can set aside a "Guilty" verdict if they think the jury was wrong ... and it does happen occassionaklly - but I am not sure if a judge can set aside a "Not Guilty" verdict ...