Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe
He can't say, "Look at this...he has a history of this kind of behavior. This shows propensity." How is THAT fair?
|
Funny, you answered yourself right here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe
Many times, I've read where jury members find out that a defendant that they let off, or gave a light sentence to, actually had a history of the offense for which he was being tried. They were not allowed by the court to know about the defendant's history, and say that if they had known, they would have made a different decision.
|
History means nothing when you are on trial for a crime because you are being tried based on evidence, not your previous actions. Previous actions bias juries to the point of finding the innocent guilty. That is why the judge takes the defendant's history into account during the sentencing portion of the trial, not during the actual trial, itself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe
But when it comes to admissions, DNA evidence, eyewitness or earwitness evidence (which I give only half-consideration to, knowing the questionable reliabiltiy of it), video or tape recordings, or other things that point to the individual's guilt
|
You're insisting this evidence is always rock-solid. It is not, even admission of guilt as I noted above.