Jurors to hear past crimes of people on trial

http://www.news.com.au/national/plan-to-te...r-1225838003521

Totally agree jurors should know the past history of criminals when they go to trial, hope this bill is pasted and quickly.

This change is only for violent and sex crimes, In which case I am all for it.
I know of one case where a paedofile had five and a half pages of priors, and where did he live? over the road from a primary school.
It is time we stopped saying poor thing every time we read of another victim, and put those that don't seem to be able to control themselves, behind bars, and for a very long time.
These people are cunning sly B's, a jury needs to know this is not a case of mistaken identity, or something he did once (pfft) or that he has a sad story, so it isn't his fault...blah blah
Knowing their past history will help a jury see this.
We need to protect the kids, and the victims of repeat offenders.

I have mixed feelings about this. Just because someone has been guilty of 99 crimes doesn't mean he's guilty of the 100th. Yet, so many serial rapists get off time and time again because they have a good - or bad, depending how you look at it - defense attorney who manages to have important evidence withheld from the jury.

I think it's a good idea - why should someone be allowed to continually commit crimes and then pretend in court that he's outraged at being arrested, he's never heard of this before...

If a person has an established pattern of behaviour, that's relevant to later behaviour. It shouldn't be taken on its own, but it's relevant and should be considered.

So often court cases are won and lost on how much evidence the lawyers can keep out of the case.

I mis read the article, I thought it said only for those who were charged with violent or sex crimes, but it seems that isn't the case.
And if that isn't the case, then I am against it.
I have a nephew who has a coloured past, his crimes never physically hurt anyone, and he has been out of trouble for a couple of years now, He has also got himself a job, which wasn't easy to get, as he has a criminal history.
If he were accused of something and he didn't do it, his past would be enough to get him convicted, and I would guess that would make him question why he should bother going straight.
I am all for someone's past being brought up in court for a violent or sexual crime, but not for all crimes.
I truly believe, as is the case for my nephew, that sometimes their past can make them go off track.
And that has to be taken into consideration, otherwisw we could end up with crime being a quick fix, just charge anyone with a chequered history

Personally, I think it is a bad idea...now that Rann has been returned, I guess it is time to see whether he is as good as his word.

I am a staunch believer in the idea of a person being innocent until proven guilty. These changes would not directly change the assumption, although it does seem to undermine it pretty significantly.

However, what it does do is stack the cards against the alleged perpetrator of a crime by saying, "well, we cannot really prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he / she did it, but we can show you that they have done it before and therefore they must have done it this time as well".

My guess is that the judge would still give directions to the jury that the past criminal record cannot be used to infer guilt in this instance, but the reality is that the jurors would more than likely be influenced by the testimony of past crimes of a similar nature and connect the dots in spite of any directions from the judge.

Imagine this scenario. A Jury has come to a decision that they are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and are about to re-enter the Court Room to deliver a verdict of 'not guilty.' Before that happens, the Law is changed, and they are told of the previous convictions of the Accused.

For that reason alone, they change their verdict to 'guilty.'

On the evidence presented, they were not going to convict. They then hear of the Accused's history (which is not evidence) and the decision they made on the facts/evidence is reversed.

How about this. A Jury is about to convict, being satisfied of the guilt of the accused. There are then told he has no prior convictions, and is a person held in high community regard. For that reason alone, ought they be given any opportunity to do a back flip.

Nah.

It is nice, well sometimes nice, lol, to have a couple of legal minds on here, to help us to see outside the square.

Court case. A driver ran through a red light, hit another car and killed the passenger.

During the case a witness gave evidence that the driver ran a red light, stopped at the next one, then ran the third one and had the accident.

After an objection by the defence counsel, the judge ruled that the jury shouldn't have heard about the driver running the first red light. He ruled that since the driver stopped at the second one, he was no more likely to run the third one than anyone else, and he discharged the jury.

Should they have been told about the driver running the first red light? Did his immediate past behaviour tell the jury something relevant to the case?

Seems to me lawyers win their cases based on what evidence they can keep out of the courtroom, so I'm not too impressed with their objections to the idea of introducing past behaviour. It has to be looked at in conjunction with the evidence, but it does have some value, surely.

In some instances the fact that the alleged perpetrator has committed past crimes is permitted to be adduced into evidence. Generally, the fact that someone has committed a crime does not automatically mean that they have done it this time as well. The rationale is that by adducing past crimes evidence the jury would be unduly influenced by the fact that this person had done similar things before and then punish them this time around even if the prosecution case is not solid. The question is whether the past crimes evidence is probative or prejudicial.

In Gwynne's example, the behaviour is immediately before the accident and would seemingly be a pattern of behaviour that is part of the very direct chain of events leading up to the accident. My view would be that the running of the red light evidence is admissible.

An interesting aside here, but also related, is how would people feel if the past sexual conduct of rape victims was universally and uniformly allowed to be adduced into evidence in an attempt to prove that the victim was in fact sexually promiscuous and that this is evidence that a rape did not occur, could not have occurred. The point being that no matter how sexually promiscuous a person is this is not proof positive that a rape did not occur, and in a similar vein the fact that an individual has committed crimes of a similar nature in the past is hardly proof positive of guilt this time around.

There obviously needs to be a balance, but I tend to believe that one has been established and is well-recognised in the common law system. The rules relating to probative value and prejudicial effect deal with this balance.

In many cases the victim's past is included, while the offender's is not. They constantly talk about changing this, but it's happening very slowly.

Where it is relevant, it is. However, where the previous sexual conduct of the victim is irrelevant then it is not included (or at least that is my understanding of how it works)...

to a degree..i agree even....
now i don't know how to use all the big words...but i think the court and jurors should only have knowledge of any past/prior/future charges that would be relevent to the accused present case..and only them...

In a guilty plea...If a type of crime committed is a first timer by two people, both pleading guilty. one accused has many priors totally unrelated to the present, the other is a cleanskin, so the court says the one with the priors must have led on the one without....so mr priors is off to jail for a stay...and the other bloke walks out with a bond..

Maybe the cleanskin was just a bit smarter in his ways, and he came up with the latest crime idea..?

so with a jury on a not guilty, a guy might have 20 years of past convictions for armed rob and agg assault...fraud, domestic violence, or just got out of jail, it still doesn't make him a rapist or a pedo....but if 'all' of his past convictions are known ..what hope has he of being believed..

I've come across some really bad dudes, but hidden away inside most of them was a nice person..It's not who we are that makes us bad people..it's what we do..and our past can decide our future in the courts..
People should not be punished because of their past that they have already paid for..thats not right