crime policing law general punishment society house would disclose previous

The verdict of an individual trial should not be predicated on trials which have already been carried out and concluded. The evidence which is being ‘withheld’ here is in fact irrelevant to the case at hand. While these countries recognise that juries have great value as a representative of the people [1] , it is also important to recognise that people are vulnerable to bias – as shown by the huge increase in convictions when previous offences are disclosed [2] . The benefits of disclosing past convictions is outweighed by the benefits of the jury remaining impartial as far as possible, as this is the best way to reach a fair and just verdict.  [1] Tickner, Joel and Ketelsen, Lee, ‘Democracy and the Precautionary Principle’, The Networker, Vol. 6 No.3, May 2001  [2] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003

Juries need to have all the information possible in order to reach a fair verdict.  It is nonsensical to withhold evidence from a jury that might be necessary for them to reach an accurate verdict. Just because their verdict might be more prone to conviction rather than acquittal does not necessarily mean that this is an unfair or even inaccurate conclusion; given that violent offenders are likely to re-offend [1] , it may illuminate the truth rather than confuse it. Jurors should be allowed to weigh the relevance of previous convictions and compare them with the accusations of the trail at hand. A criminal justice system which currently relies on the ability of the jury to make a decision [2] cannot legitimately choose to withhold evidence from them without innately biasing the trial itself. As the UK Government’s White Paper states, ‘we want less evidence to be withheld from the courts, on the principle that relevant evidence should be admissible . . . magistrates, judges and juries have the common sense to evaluate relevant evidence and should be trusted to do so’ [3] . If we cannot trust juries to decide which evidence is relevant to the verdict and which is not, then the entire use of juries in the criminal justice system should be reconsidered.  [1] CBC News, ‘Getting out of prison’, March 2008.  [2] Direct Gov, ‘Jury service – what happens in court and after the trial’, 10 October 2011.  [3] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.

If anything, this is an argument to prevent the media from publishing and details of a case or its defendant before the trial has been carried out, or from being more proactive and disqualifying jurors who ‘research’ their case before it comes to court. We should not endorse this kind of behaviour, which jurors know is not allowed, by legitimising it within court and announcing previous convictions. The harm of bias, particularly among those who would go out of their way to read about the personal history of a defendant, could be incredibly dangerous to the principle of a fair trial.

Occasional disclosure of convictions leads to an inconsistent justice system.  At present in Britain, some previous convictions may be disclosed if they bear a striking resemblance to the case at trial, if the defendant falsely claims to be of good character, or if they attack the character of a prosecution witness [1] . However, different judges invariable interpret these criteria in different ways, which leads to a wavering standard of trail where previous convictions may or may not be revealed. It would be much more efficient and transparent to allow this motion and make court procedures more accessible.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.

The current system is unfairly weighted in favour of criminals.  It is unfair that those who repeatedly re-offend should be treated in the same manner as those who have committed one offence; a singular offence could mark a mistake or accident in the defendant’s choices, but repeated criminal acts mark a habit and a lack of regret for past crimes. Failing to take past convictions into account can lead to many dangerous offenders being underestimated by the jury, and so released. This is particularly pertinent in cases of child molestation, where child molesters have a particularly high rate of re-offending – expected to be even ‘larger than the reported 50 per cent’ - but ‘only a small proportion of sexual offences against children result in a conviction’. This conviction rate, however, does rise for ‘those with a history of prior sexual offences’ [1] .  Under the current conditions, this system is unfairly weighted against the innocent victims of repeated crime. A higher conviction rate, informed by the knowledge of previous offences, helps to reach justice for these victims and their families, as well as promoting justice and the safety of the general public who find it frustrating that so many dangerous offenders are released without appropriate conviction [2] . Moreover, jurors themselves lose confidence in the justice system when they find out that they have just acquitted a defendant who has committed a similar crime before. One notable example of this was series of trials of Kirk Reid, who committed many sexual assaults against women including several instances of rape and who was ‘wrongfully acquitted’ of his first offence in 1996. Not only did his victim lose all sense of hope in the justice system – she had faced her attacked and been discredited – but one of the jurors at the trial who believed that he was guilty went on to criticise the justice system itself [3] . The current system seriously risks acquitting criminals who have already committed similar crimes; it is time to rebalance the justice system to acknowledge the needs of the victims who suffer through wrongful acquittal of their attackers.  [1] Victims of Violence, ‘Research – Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse’, 28 February 2011  [2] Hughes, David, ‘Sex offenders to lose right to get out of jail early’, The Daily Mail  [3] Lette, Kathy, ‘For sexual assault, justice is on trial’, The Guardian, 1 July 2010

While recidivism is obviously a problem, this motion fails to take into account any situation where an individual has previously committed a crime but is innocent of the crime going to trial. Given that conviction rates soar when previous convictions are disclosed [1] , this motion doesn’t rebalance the justice system to cater for the victims, but risks seriously prejudicing those who are innocent of the crime going to trial. A wrongful conviction is just as bad as a wrongful acquittal; the prejudicial effects on the jury’s ability to make a verdict [2] undermines the objectivity of the justice system, and seriously risks the possibility of a fair trial.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.  [2] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.

The more obvious and efficient solution to this problem is to ensure a clearer standard of when previous convictions may or may not be disclosed, so that judges may act by the same standards. There is a simple solution to this particular complication; it would be an overreaction to suddenly change the entire court process by allowing this motion.

Revealing past convictions could actually be detrimental in providing an accurate character profile of the defendant or prosecution witness, particularly if the defendant has previously been convicted but has also had successful rehabilitation. This disclosure undermines a key principle of the justice system – rehabilitation and reintegration [1] – by undermining any possibility that they could have changed their lifestyle or altered their character. As such, while it might serve one point of court, it seriously undermines other principles of justice which should not be compromised for such a small benefit.  [1] law.jrank.org, ‘Rehabilitation – What is Rehabilitation?’

Jurors are already aware of information which might ‘bias’ their verdict.  Jurors are frequently affected by media coverage of particular cases, which makes it almost impossible for them to remain impartial in the idealistic way which opposition naively believes possible. This creates a situation where the jury may be more affected by information which they have found out elsewhere – for example on the news or in newspapers – than the information which is presented to them in court. There have been some cases where jurors search the internet to find the backgrounds to their cases, despite the fact that this is not allowed [1] . This evidently reflects that jurors feel that they have not been adequately informed and so seek facts elsewhere. Given that this need has been reflected by the jurors themselves, the court should give jurors all possible information and bring previous convictions into the open to ensure that they can base their verdict on reliable fact presented in court rather than resorting to sensationalist media.  [1] Attorney General’s Office, ‘Juror convicted for internet research’, 23 January 2012.

Defendants who are innocent will be protected  This motion could allow innocent defendants to mount a stronger case. This is because, if allowed, the previous convictions of prosecution witnesses would be admitted as evidence. In this case, if a prosecution witness falsely claims good character in opposition to the defendant, any falsity could be more easily seen and weighed by the jury. This solves a problem under that status quo where ‘the threat of introducing his [the defendant’s] previous convictions will frequently inhibit him from introducing character evidence about the prosecution witness’ [1] ; fear that the defendant’s convictions may weigh against them where the prosecution witness remains untouchable creates a discrepancy in the justice system. However, if convictions on both sides were to be revealed anyway, then neither can falsely claim the character of the other and attempt to convince the jury of false information on this front.  [1] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.

It is patronising to state the jurors cannot understand the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. However, knowledge of the defendant’s background might help to shed light on the case at hand and allow the jurors to view the wider picture when weighing up their verdict.

Unfortunately, empirical evidence shows that past offenders are more likely to commit further offences [1] . Revealing past convictions could be a good indicator of how likely it is that the defendant could have committed a crime, particularly if it is a similar crime to one committed in the past. Acquitting a defendant of a crime which they had previously committed could easily create public outrage and discredit the justice system; it is only fair that past convictions should be taken into account alongside the rest of the evidence.  [1] Edwards, Richard, ‘Half of all criminals re-offend within a year’, The Telegraph, 5 September 2008.

We already recognise that we cannot place complete trust in juries.  Although we recognise that juries can provide valuable insight and represent the will of the general public in court cases [1] (and especially the communities in which the crimes occurred [2] ), there is also recognition that juries can be subject to bias [3] . Britain has even suggested plans to restrict the right to trial by jury in order to prevent undue bias from affecting court cases [4] . Elsewhere, experts are debating over whether jurors should learn about ‘a victim’s sexual history in rape cases where the defendant asserts that the accuser consented to sex, or a victim's propensity for violence in murder cases where the accused claims self-defense’ [5] because of fears that it might cause juror bias. We do not grant ultimate knowledge to jurors, nor should we; it endangers the potential for an unbiased trial.  [1] Lawson Neal, and Simms, Andrew, ‘A People’s Jury of a thousand angry citizens’, The Guardian, 31 July 2011.  [2] New Jersey Courts, ‘Welcome to the New Jersey Court System’, judiciary.state.nj.us, 2011.  [3] Howard Nations, ‘Overcoming Jury Bias’  [4] Davies, Patricia Wynn, ‘Plans to restrict right to trial by jury condemned’, The Independent, 28 February 1997.  [5] Silverglate, Harvey A., and Poulson, Dan, ‘Getting Real at the SJC’, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 30 May 2005 .

Allowing this motion would lead to a miscarriage of justice.  This motion removes the incentive for police to conduct vigorous investigations. Given the increasing pressure on policemen and women to gain convictions [1] , this motion will mean that their best chance of obtaining those convictions is simply to accuse those whose backgrounds could feasibly lead a jury to believe that they are not only capable of crime, but have committed the crime in question. Subsequently, the real culprits may be left to go free as suspicion is routinely pointed towards those who already have a criminal record. Given that poor police investigation [2] and poor case preparation by the prosecution [3] are currently a large source of dissatisfaction with the justice system, it is important to prevent either police or the prosecution from becoming dependent on the negative records of the defendants rather than properly fulfilling their roles.  [1] Bushywood, ‘CPS - Crown Persecution Service’.  [2] The Guardian, ‘The cost of poor policing’. 11 October 2010  [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice at Risk: War Crimes Trials in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro’, 14 October 2004, D1607.

The disclosure of previous convictions could falsely characterize the defendant.  This motion is incredibly dangerous in a variety of ways as not only convictions but also acquittals and other past conduct could then be raised in a court trials. This means that a jury could be informed that somebody had questionable behaviour, such as a sexual interest in children, even if they had never been tried or much less convicted of an actual offence. This would allow the prosecution to unduly blacken the character of the defendant, and easily prejudice the jury against them for no valid reason, and without the evidence which formal proceedings would require. Studies into jury verdicts have found that a jury was ‘50% more likely to convict if it was told that the defendant had a conviction for a similar previous offence than if it was given no information’, particularly in regard to sexual offences [1] . This is proof that jurors are highly susceptible to prejudice when reaching a verdict.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.

The motion completely undermines the assumption of innocence which accompanies a fair trial.  By projecting past convictions on to a new case, this disclosure greatly weakens the presumption of innocence which is the defendant’s right [1] . It is the jury’s duty to form a verdict based on the relevant case, and it should not be dependent on events from the defendant’s past life which may be completely irrelevant to the case in hand. Many people who mistakenly committed a crime at one point in their life realise that it was a mistake and do not go on to re-offend, particularly if they have received help or treatment from the state [2] . Even if the defendant has repeatedly committed crimes in their past, it does not necessarily follow that they are guilty of the particular offence which has gone to trial.  [1] Criminal Defense Department’ Every person is PRESUMED INNOCENT until Proven Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’, Parkes Law Group, 6 May 2011  [2] Public Safety Canada, ‘Treatment for sex offenders’, 28 December 2007

This point places too much importance on the defendant’s history. In any case, records of their previous convictions must be heard alongside of the facts of the primary crime; any history will always be tempered by discussion of the actual crime. Satisfaction from the justice system will be greater if the public are aware that juries are not simply allowing past offenders to walk free; and if police and prosecution forces are found to be failing at their jobs, then this should be separately addressed and regulated.

Better training for jurors could easily override this problem. If we continue to use juries as an essential part of the justice system, it is important to make sure that they are as well-informed as possible. Ensuring that they are blind to the truth is not a legitimate way to achieve a fair or unbiased verdict; rather, it innately limits the accuracy of any verdict and confines it to only a portion of the truth.