Monday, September 21, 2009

Something to Think About Today...

The question for you to ponder:

Should a defendant's personal history be a factor in a trial, in determining guilt or innocence?
Posted by at

10 comments:

Beejay said...

Yes, since it will be an indicator of 'normal' behavior....

Next?????

September 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Sassa said...

Aha that poses the next question...What is normal? I think if it has something to do with the crime yes. i.e. a three time rapist being charged with rape. Or a battery charge when they have been previously on notice for domestic violence. or if they are the only accountant & living in a million $ house and they are accused of embezzlement.

September 21, 2009 at 3:59 PM
jedwis said...

ser.. I am not a lawyer( just play one on the blogs) but it seems more often that no prior activity come into the case at hand.. to me that is a loophole many defense lawyers use.. to get out of the current case to be heard by a jury. To answer your post.. I think all past history of criminal activities should be allowed to show a pattern of bad behavior.. like sassa mentioned

September 21, 2009 at 5:19 PM
SER said...

I’m not really sure...

If you are a juror and the defendant is being tried for a 5th drunken driving charge, do you really need to know his/her past? The individual has a problem and does not need to be on the road or should be allowed to own a vehicle.

Some people say, “he/she grew up in such a bad neighborhood and had terrible parents”. Tough shit...the individual deep down in his/her heart knows the difference between right and wrong.

September 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM
hale-bopp said...

I am going to say no. If you can't prove guilt with evidence collected, maybe the person is not guilty. If they have been found guilty of crimes previously and you allow that to be used as "evidence" you rise the probability of false convictions.

In the sentencing phase, that is another matter. After you find someone guilty, then it makes sense to argue for harsher penalties based on previous convictions. In the cited instance of someone's 5th drunk driving offense, laws in many states mandate more severe penalties for subsequent offenses.

September 21, 2009 at 7:17 PM
OrbsCorbs said...

I agree with hale on this one.

September 21, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Beejay said...

I could get wishy washy on this one. In rethinking the question, I see pros and cons from both sides. Guess, I'll just back off and sorta agree with Hale and Orbs...how much more wishy-washy can I get!

September 22, 2009 at 9:39 AM
hale-bopp said...

I don't think of it as being wishy washy, Beejay, so much as responding to well reasoned, insightful arguments :)

September 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM
OrbsCorbs said...

Changing your mind. I pride myself on my willingness to change my mind.

September 22, 2009 at 10:09 PM
kkdither said...

I find that since I can never make up my mind, I don't have to change it too often. ;)

September 25, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)