[InOne]

People don't end up in prison for no reason lostalex like toy soldier was saying

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by InOne

People don't end up in prison for no reason lostalex like toy soldier was saying

people ending up in prison is not what we are talking about though, i have no doubt that the vast majority of people in prison are guilty.... we are talking about all of the guilty people that walk free.

I believe that most people that commit crimes walk away without a conviction. that is what worries me. Most victims don't get justice.

[InOne]

They're clever and don't get caught. What else can you say?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by InOne

They're clever and don't get caught. What else can you say?

well that's a good question... what do you say to the legitimate victims who walk away feeling like what happened to them didn't happen, that they are the liars. that they are the wrong ones. what do you say to them when their victimizers walk away scott free?

our system says "just suck it up", that's the wy the cards fall, you were violated in a horrible way, but it's better that you are called a liar, and a false accuser, and if you continue to accuse the person who violated you, then you can be sued for lying. We'd rather 1000 people be called liars,. we'd rather call 1000 victims liars and deny the crimes against them, than convict 1 innocent man.

That's how the justice system works now.

Imagine how that feels, to be violated and abused., and then told that you are a liar, that you are not allowed to even talk about how you were abused, that the person who abused you is innocent, and if you even speak about it again, then you can be held liable for making those claims, knowing that it's the truth.

How would you feel being told that you aren't even allowed to talk about what someone did to you, because they were found "innocent" in a court?

imagine what a mind-**** that would be.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by lostalex

well that's a good question... what do you say to the legitimate victims who walk away feeling like what happened to them didn't happen, that they are the liars. that they are the wrong ones. what do you say to them when their victimizers walk away scott free?

our system says "just suck it up", that's the wy the cards fall, you were violated in a horrible way, but it's better that you are called a liar, and a false accuser, and if you continue to accuse the person who violated you, then you can be sued for lying. We'd rather 1000 people be called liars,. we'd rather call 1000 victims liars and deny the crimes against them, than convict 1 innocent man.

That's how the justice system works now.

Imagine how that feels, to be violated and abused., and then told that you are a liar, that you are not allowed to even talk about how you were abused, that the person who abused you is innocent, and if you even speak about it again, then you can be held liable for making those claims, knowing that it's the truth.

How would you feel being told that you aren't even allowed to talk about what someone did to you, because they were found "innocent" in a court?

imagine what a mind-**** that would be.

there should be more after care I agree. I think you're getting onto the rape subject here though

[Nedusa]

What angers me most is the fact that previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed until the trial is completed and so many times people are acquitted because the evidence is too circumstantial and/or the barrister has found legal loophole. Only to find out that this self same person has a string of previous convictions for the same crime as long as your arm.

The look on some of the jurors faces is priceless as they let the clearly guilty piece of crap back out onto the streets to carry on re offending .

I say previous convictions for the same offence should be disclosed to the jury as it is relevant to the defendants current case.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

What angers me most is the fact that previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed until the trial is completed and so many times people are acquitted because the evidence is too circumstantial and/or the barrister has found legal loophole. Only to find out that this self same person has a string of previous convictions for the same crime as long as your arm.

The look on some of the jurors faces is priceless as they let the clearly guilty piece of crap back out onto the streets to carry on re offending .

I say previous convictions for the same offence should be disclosed to the jury as it is relevant to the defendants current case.

This has been a contentious issue for a good while and in some trials this can happen.
I can take on board much of what you say above in your post.

However, there are 2 ways to look at it.
Once you reveal previous convictions,even possibly a lot smaller than the current crime being tried in court.
The chance of a fair trial is then greatly diminished and the revealing of previous convictions clouds the whole trial.
That could mean someone who had done a lot wrong in the past, then turned their life around but then perhaps were in the wrong place at the wrong time, could be discounted as being able to tell the truth and leave his/her trial a forgone conclusion against them because of previous crimes.

A trial should be about the issue in hand at the time,with enough evidence to win conviction on that alone,otherwise in all truth, fair trials could be near impossible to conduct.

[thesheriff443]

shoot first and ask questions later.
humans tell lies on both sides of the line, a criminal or a police man.
some times there is not enough evidence to prove you're guilt or innocence.
this thread is like dog chasing its tail!

[thesheriff443]

a police Sargent once said to me, it looks ok, if not you have got away with it.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

This has been a contentious issue for a good while and in some trials this can happen.
I can take on board much of what you say above in your post.

However, there are 2 ways to look at it.
Once you reveal previous convictions,even possibly a lot smaller than the current crime being tried in court.
The chance of a fair trial is then greatly diminished and the revealing of previous convictions clouds the whole trial.
That could mean someone who had done a lot wrong in the past, then turned their life around but then perhaps were in the wrong place at the wrong time, could be discounted as being able to tell the truth and leave his/her trial a forgone conclusion against them because of previous crimes.

A trial should be about the issue in hand at the time,with enough evidence to win conviction on that alone,otherwise in all truth, fair trials could be near impossible to conduct.

I agree previous convictions should not have a bearing on a current trial but I think when the previous conviction is for the same offence then I think it does have a bearing . Say this person has a history of burglary and they are charged with another burglary then I think their previous form for this offence is a factor however small and this fact should be disclosed to the jury especially if it comes down to a balance of probabilities in trying to decide guilt.

Knowing this person is capable of burglary and has committed this offence on many occasions may help the jury in deciding the current case.

I think disclosure should only be made however when the person has a string of convictions for the same offence they are currently charged with.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

shoot first and ask questions later.
humans tell lies on both sides of the line, a criminal or a police man.
some times there is not enough evidence to prove you're guilt or innocence.
this thread is like dog chasing its tail!

but don't you agree that criminals are better liars than victims?

unfortunately the justice system seems to assume the opposite.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I agree previous convictions should not have a bearing on a current trial but I think when the previous conviction is for the same offence then I think it does have a bearing . Say this person has a history of burglary and they are charged with another burglary then I think their previous form for this offence is a factor however small and this fact should be disclosed to the jury especially if it comes down to a balance of probabilities in trying to decide guilt.

Knowing this person is capable of burglary and has committed this offence on many occasions may help the jury in deciding the current case.

I think disclosure should only be made however when the person has a string of convictions for the same offence they are currently charged with.

It can happen Nedusa, there are ways of adding a charge that at the very least opens up a past dishonesty element that can make it harder for the past crimes to be hidden totally.

Especially as to the 'spent' convictions.

However as Law stands, if someone is pleading not guilty, then they have to have the right to a fair trial.
It cannot be right that on a charge now, they have held against them previous convictions,that actually could open the door to others effectively 'framing' someone they know who has past convictions for crimes and the real guilty person/s making them the scapegoat for it.

The penalties for pleading not guilty to something and then being found guilty usually have a greater and severe sentence imposed on them.
A trial is not a nice place to be but it has to be seen as fair and give all a fighting chance where doubt is inferred.
Previous convictions being revealed would remove all that process but it does happen in some cases now that some past crimes don't remain hidden totally.

This happens more often than people believe but in a hopeless looking case for someone who maybe is not guilty of the crime, a plea of guilty is made for lighter sentencing.

Sadly if previous convictions being revealed were the norm then in all likelihhood, anyone with previous convictions innocent or otherwise would not have the chance of a fair trial and a great number more trials would be seen as a hopeless cause.

It is a hard one and really what it needs is a massive reform of the justice system I think to ensure fairness with all facts.
I doubt even in my lifetime if any major changes to the justice system will be forthcoming however.

Lostalex made this thread and highlighted rape crimes, well I would certainly be in favour of ensuring that full justice was done in those crimes and I am sure it can be that the victims, as he said, often are left to pick up the pieces even when they are correct.
There, for me, more needs to be done to punish too those who make the false accusations of rape so that people who are rightly reporting it maybe can get the full justice they should have.

This topic opens up a lot to think about and there are few simple answers I guess but there are I am sure, many injustices done to both the accused and accusers in our justice system at present,which in my view at this time anyway,the overall revealing of past convictions in most cases would not help at all.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by lostalex

but don't you agree that criminals are better liars than victims?

unfortunately the justice system seems to assume the opposite.

you could say, who would you believe, a police man or a criminal?

[the truth]

yes innocent until proven guilty, or rather not guilty until proven guilty.

[Livia]

Our legal system is a flawed system, but what are we going to replace it with?

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Livia

Our legal system is a flawed system, but what are we going to replace it with?

no replace just keep fine tuning and improving.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by lostalex

well that's a good question... what do you say to the legitimate victims who walk away feeling like what happened to them didn't happen, that they are the liars. that they are the wrong ones. what do you say to them when their victimizers walk away scott free?

our system says "just suck it up", that's the wy the cards fall, you were violated in a horrible way, but it's better that you are called a liar, and a false accuser, and if you continue to accuse the person who violated you, then you can be sued for lying. We'd rather 1000 people be called liars,. we'd rather call 1000 victims liars and deny the crimes against them, than convict 1 innocent man.

That's how the justice system works now.

Imagine how that feels, to be violated and abused., and then told that you are a liar, that you are not allowed to even talk about how you were abused, that the person who abused you is innocent, and if you even speak about it again, then you can be held liable for making those claims, knowing that it's the truth.

How would you feel being told that you aren't even allowed to talk about what someone did to you, because they were found "innocent" in a court?

imagine what a mind-**** that would be.

You can just flip that over, though - Imagine how it would feel to know that you have done nothing wrong, to go to court and be told that you are violent and a criminal, that the person who is accusing you dishonestly is the "victim", and that you're going to go to prison despite being innocent. Imagine sitting in a cell for years, knowing that you are NOT guilty, that you DIDN'T do what the whole world now believes about you, but you have no choice but to suck it up and live like that.

Can you imagine what a mind-**** THAT would be?? At least a victim who doesn't have justice served is still free... at least they can attempt to move on, and live a normal human life. An incorrectly imprisoned innocent person has all of those same feelings, has been equally failed by the justice system, and on top of that has had their freedom taken away from them.

[Kizzy]

You can only convict on the weight of evidence, if there isn't enough to convict then someone guilty could walk free, by the same token someone innocent and accused falsely would too. How you differentiate between the two I don't know,
unless the evidence is there to suggest an assault never took place initially.

[the truth]

Id like to see more abortion doctors inspected too for improper practices....also any women having abortions beyond the 24 week period need imprisonment too
lets step up the action on these people to protect the lives of the unborn children

[Livia]

Originally Posted by the truth

Id like to see more abortion doctors inspected too for improper practices....also any women having abortions beyond the 24 week period need imprisonment too
lets step up the action on these people to protect the lives of the unborn children

WHOLE different story. Nice try though.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Livia

WHOLE different story. Nice try though.

no its not. were talking about innocence or guilt, thats an enormously braod spectrum. nice try though.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by the truth

no its not. were talking about innocence or guilt, thats an enormously braod spectrum. nice try though.

... and you just inevitably roll it around to a woman-bashing opportunity and a call for doctors to be investigated. That's nothing to do with this, according to the OP. It's not a discussion about abortion nor about medical ethics. And furthermore, I know you're going to go on and on about this... but I won't be reading any more of your nonsense in this thread.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Livia

... and you just inevitably roll it around to a woman-bashing opportunity and a call for doctors to be investigated. That's nothing to do with this, according to the OP. It's not a discussion about abortion nor about medical ethics. And furthermore, I know you're going to go on and on about this... but I won't be reading any more of your nonsense in this thread.

thanks for the personal abuse, duly reported. it is relevant regardless if its a subect you dont care about. innocent or guilty covers a vast spectrum not just areas that interest you.