Category: Let's talk
Well, I imagine some of you may or may not have been following the michael jackson trial, and may be aware that the judge has allowed previous alagations that have been made against him to be taken into account, even though none of these alagations were tried in a criminal court. In this country, the government are currently planning to implement changes to trial procedures that mean previous convictions can be made known to juries in certain cases.
So what do you think, should the past be taken into account when trying a person for a current offence, after all, surely just because he/she has done it before, doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty of the offence this time does it?
If you were a jurer, wouldn't the fact that you were told someone had previously raped someone, sway your opinion as to whether or not they were guilty?
I think in the case of rape it shown the person has the propensity to commit the crime, then yes, it must be considered in their present trial... And as for Jackson its vital that they include his previous offences,because to exclude them will only negate the seriousness and depth of his depravity...
For once, I can totally and wholehearted agree with Gobblin! Try the sucker, bring up his past, and if he's guilty, lock him up and throw away the key! Who's bad?
I also agree, if a person's got a criminal past and is on trial for another offense, it should be taken into consideration that they have previous convictions, because if it is the case a person has previous convictions, then they have a reputation for been on the wrong side of the law. This needs to be considdered if the person is guilty of the charges brought against them because whatever sentence was passed the last time didn't stop the person breaking the law so they need harsher punnishments.
but whatever happened to doing the crime and serving your sentence? Yes it's true that some offenders will re-offend, I just can't see though that it won't cause some jurers to be more biased in favour of a guilty verdict purely based on the fact the accused has done it before.
yes, but in the case of Jackson, the reason he didn't go to trial before is because he paid them off. Sexual crimes such as rape, crimes against children aren't acts of sex. They are acts of control and violence. Past behavior needs to be brought into account. For the sake of society and the sake of the individual, to stop them and either lock them up so the cycle can stop or they can get help. Which is a whole othe topic, whether people like this can be rehabilitaded.
Carla
sugar baby, yeah, do the crime pay your time. but what about the kids these sex offenders mess with. Hmmm, it's there whole life that they are doing the time. If they've done it once they shouldn't be out to do it again. I mean you get more time in prison for drugs and stupid crap like that, than you do for harming a child. What's wrong with this picture? smile-- angel
I'm ok with the past bad acts coming in in the Jackson trial. My main reason for this is the old, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it's probably a duck". As stated previously, He paid a lot of money to stay out of jail in a couple of cases. As a result, this most recent victim is dealing with what he's dealing with now.
I most certainly do think the past should be brought up. I always consider the source when I decide things aobut what a person is accused of or anything and it does help. More often than not, if soem one gets caught doign something it's not the first time, so if they're falsely accused of it down the road, well, consider that an I Owe You for 1 of the ones they got away with. People are too soft these days, I say really punish them and take the PC stuff of today and shove it.
I have to totally agree. Certain crime trials the past should be considered; whether convicted or not. For instants, this very case. He paid a lot of money to stay out of prison, so, it is obvious that he has set a behavior pattern which has not gotten help, and even if he had been quite "reformed" there is always the chance he slipped, or was never truly reformed in the first place. No, I don't think every case past accusations should be broached unless it has spacifically to do with the current charge...Does that make since? A man who has been accused of rape, and is now up on vehicular man slotter do to alcohol should not have his past accusation of rape brought up because rape does not always indicate alcohol abuse, and there for has nothing to do with the current charge. However, if a man has been accused of rape in the past and is now being accused of child molestation then he clearly is a sexual devient and this needs to be explored by discussing his past activities that confirm, or at least open the door to, such sexual devience.
I think in this case, the past should count, because, as some people already said, the offender can offend again. Of course you're right: If the offender did it before some years ago, it doesn't necesarily mean that he/she's guilty in this case, but anyway. Basically I don't even know what I should believe in this case: Is he guilty, is he not guilty - I don#t know anymore.
well that's not for us to say, only a jury will decide that. and either way, there will be some who will disagree.
If you don't want your past to be used against you then the possibility of that happening should be a deterent to stop you committing any crimes at all.
alright, well let's look at a different senario here .. let's forget about the jackson trial for a minute, let's concentrate on mr x here in the UK. mr x walked a girl home one night, they got chatting, one thing led to another and they ended up sleeping together. the next morning the girl decides she doesn't know how to tell her boyfriend so she cries rape. mr x is charged, but is never convicted because, actually, he didn't do it. and for those who might say a girl wouldn't cry rape, believe me, it does happen. Well some time later mr x meets a girl and they have a relationship, a sexual relationship, for a couple of weeks, it then emerges that this girl, whom our mr x thought was 17, is actually only 15, and is therefore under the age of consent. Again he is charged with a crime, that of having sex with a minor, and not only that, the previous alagation, which we might remember, he was never prosicuted for, is brought up in court as evidence. how do you judge mr x then .. he raped a girl once, even though it didn't happen, so therefore we should throw the book at him for having sex with a 15 year old?
You really seriously have to question his judgement and naievty
......................
but in the case of underage sex I'd say his past mistake should not be considered,however you would have to ask yourself why he keeps screwing up in such a spectacular way...
yeah,m i mean once on accident may be likely, but come on if it keeps happening then he needs to think about where and how h is meeting these young girls. You would think after the first time he would be cautious about the second time. And if it is really not his fault, then he just has the bad luck. but, at the same time what are the likely hood that someone is going to be wrongly accuzed of the same thing twice? This is a one in a million case i bet. smile- angel
no sadly it's not a 1 off the world is overrun with bampots
First of all a good lawyer would also point out why he was never convicted...Instead he was found innocent. Also, these are 2 different issues. The first girl falsely accused, and well, did he ask her age before sleeping with the second girl? I think that should have some baring. I know that some girls will lie or mislead a guy when they're actually underage, but here the guy is still to blame...And, no, I don't think that is right. What I'm saying is bringing up his past could help him; at least to my way of thinking...But if the past is going to be brought up all circumstances need to be presented, not just what helps the prosicution...
Um, oh, good question. It's hard to prove that he is not guilty. And, in the second case: How can he know that this girl is 15, if she claims she's 17?
If he was prooved to be innocent and he is if he wasn't charged, then what he is not guilty of can't be used against him, obviously.
But if this guy continues to be caught out by underage and/or lying girls, he may develop a real hatred of women, which could lead to violence when he finally snaps due to his frustration of endlessly meeting women who enjoy playing games
Yeah, I agree, that can happen.
Actually, you're not proven innocent if you're let go, just not proven guilty and assumed innocent. This guy SugarBaby brought up is certainly unlucky, but it is the responsibility of thelawyers and the jury to consider the flimsiness of past allegations of rape, and consider a two-year difference, maybe he didn't know she was fifteen vs. seventeen and she used a convincing fake ID? Past allegations might bias a jury, but at the same time, cases ca be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If juries think the person probably did it, and they find out she was convicted of a past offense, that would settle the decision for them and keep a criminal off the streets. I think if we don't consider past allegations, we put the rights of the individual above the rights of the society.
I agree accept to add this. When looking at a statutory rape issue, and if the guy didn't know shouldn't the underaged female then be punished? After all, most girls know the age limits...And some seduce older guys just to get them in trouble...
True, I agree.
Yes I have never understud why people who are under aged aren't punnished for having sex with people. They are aware of the laws of not having sex until been aged 16 (in the UK) so they are therefore just as guilty as their partner of the offense. Not only this, if they deny their actual age and make one up, hey're also guilty of lying. If you're prooved to be innocent though, then you shouldn't have to reproove your innocence unless the current charge against you has similarities with the previous charge.
well I guess it's because the law figures that if you're not old enough to consent to having sex, you're not old enough to know it's wrong ... going off topic though ... if a guy has sex with a 15 year old girl, he is charged with having sex with a monor .. however if a girl has sex with a 15 year old boy, this charge is not brought. bit unfair don't you think?
I've seen charges brought against girls as well.