Previous murders shouldn't be withheld, along with cases involving women making accusations on men where they were crying wolf about rape when in later it's found that they doing it as a vengeful action. Which is common.
Previous actions shouldn't be withheld from juries, especially when they are of similiar nature.
Archmage Cleps;4054899 Oh, yes, people can make logical conclusions and understand what is logical and what is not, but I wouldn't put my life on someone actually acting out that decision, metaphorically or otherwise.[/quote]
We use information to make decisions. In the morning you know where you are going and so you use that information to choose what clothes to wear. If we presume that people cannot make correct decisions then everything we think we know could be wrong.
Perhaps ants are the size of a melon.
[quote=Archmage Cleps;4054899] Not really. We are working under the assumption that in each case, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If he had murdered beforehand, then the mere fact that the history is read out in court will, even subconsciously, ratify to the jury the fact that he is guilty, even if he were not. This is completely blows away the notion of a fair trial, as well as the fact that each crime should be looked at independently, unless it is obvious they were committed at the same time.
You admitted that a persons mind causes them to behave in the way that they do. The only way that anybody can assess a persons mind is judging their actions.
snabbler;4056321 You admitted that a persons mind causes them to behave in the way that they do. The only way that anybody can assess a persons mind is judging their actions.
but someone should not have to account for past actions twice
nazoa93;4056388but someone should not have to account for past actions twice
There not accounting for past actions. There accounting for present actions.