Imagine someone has been convicted of murder in the past. Imagine they are once again accused of murder. Should the jury know the piece of information that he has been convicted in the past?
In most parts of the world the law dictates that they should not know. Because it is likely to give a biased opinion of that person. However there is currently a debate going on somewhere about if this is fair.
In my opinion the jury should know.
This is simply because of the fact that committing murder in the past is a piece of information that the jury can use to make their decision. The fact is a person who has committed crime in the past is more likely to commit crime in the future (or perhaps less depending upon the crime and its premise).
I don't know ...half the time I think they should know everything but there is something to this thing of withholding damaging information for the sake of a fair trail.
The jury should know if he is convicted guilty again and is due to be sentenced, but no, unless the previous murder had some bearing on the present trial.
Archmage Cleps;4048572The jury should know if he is convicted guilty again and is due to be sentenced, but no, unless the previous murder had some bearing on the present trial.
It does have a crap load to do with this trial in any circumstance. Because the fact a person has murdered before shows quite a bit about their character.
The fact that the person has murdered before has no physical bearing on whether he/she has killed again.
I don't support the jury system in general.
A jury of laymen is prone to manipulation, especially if they don't know all the facts (including the history of the defendant).
What?! Come ON...you can't be serious. Every system a human gets invovled in is going to be subject to some sort of maunipulation. We might as well right off everything...
What I meant is that I would prefer a group of professional judges with full background information over a jury of laymen with limited data.
The history of the defendant is exactly that. history. It is a past. The past is not a sufficient indication of what a person is likely to do in the future. Especially for a one-off such as a murder. For example, I'm in study leave right now. Yesterday I went to school for an exam. Does that mean I will do so again today? no. Does it mean that I will necessarily do that anytime within the next week. Not really.
If a 17-year-old boy stabs a man to gets his purse and is sentenced to 10 years in prison (because he is not an adult) and commits the same crime at the age of 27 after he has left the prison I think his history will be relevant, won't it?