Under proposed plans, juries will be made aware if the defendant has any previous convictions for similar offenses in theft and child sex abuse cases.

Some believe that it could cause miscarriages of justice.

The Houses or Parliament would be required to approve these changes.

Do you think previous convictions should be disclosed to the jury?

If this goes through it is believed that it may eventually spread to other crimes besides theft and child abuse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3951295.stm

A defendant's previous convictions for the crime they are now being charged should be revealed.

Yes, why don't you run a poll?

Originally posted by markham
A defendant's previous convictions for the crime they are now being charged should be revealed.

Agreed. There has to be some line drawn.

A conviction for fraud twenty years ago has no relevence to a current charge of GBH for instance.

As far as I'm aware, pre cons can be disclosed if they are relevant to the offence. I think it was the Criminal Justice Act 1991 that abolished the right of juries to have access to pre-cons.

Might stop some of the legal fraternity milking the legal aid budget on lost causes- drunk drivers, child abusers etc

Poll now added, thanks Missb.

Of course the Juries should be informed of previous convictions! If they weren't it would be easier for a con to dupe the Juries into believing he was innocent. Even though he may have been tryed guilty for the same crime 5 times before!

Only if the previous conviction is directly linked with the present one. I like the system as it is at the moment. the defendant has a shield against previous convictions. If the defence tries to sing the praises of the defendant in any way, thereby bringing their character into question, the shield is lost so any previous convictions can be revealed.

Having read a bit about this today, it would appear that previous convictions will be revealed only if they are relevant to the current case. This seems to be a fair way of doing things. However, in the case that the defendant is innocent, revealing previous related convictions will more than likely lead the jury to bringing a guilty verdict. Bit of a hazy area this one.

The answer is no, the jury shoul'd not be informed until they have convicted the defendant.
If you go down this road you will not get a fair trial for the defendant and under our law we are innocent until proven guilty.
This is one change to the justice system that is wrong and shoul'd not be implemented,but of course with a election only months away you will get more of these type of announcements to make the goverment appear tough on crime when everyone knows they lost the plot on this issue a long time ago.

I think at the moment the defence is allowed to call "character witnesses". So I don't see why the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to do the same. If someone doesn't want their past convictions to be brought into a current case, they only have themselves to blame for breaking the law in the first place. I think if someone is being to tried for a particular crime then it could be worth letting the jury know if the person has a history of commiting similar offences in the past.

No I dont go along with that at all,what this will do is to put in the minds of the jury negative thoughts about the defendant.
Our system has been the same for hundreds of yrs and all of a sudden it's not good enough,I really think this is all about politics and nothing to do with justice.
Maybe i'm a little cynical but there you are,I dont trust anything this goverment do.

I don't think it is very sudden that people have noticed that the justice system we have had for many years is not good enough. People have been disatisfied for many many many years in actual fact, and while I can see why people might be concerned about changing it, I think the fact that we have had a particular system for many years is probably the least valid argument I have heard so far. Many laws which have been in for years are unjust and need changing in my opinion.

I think that what is needed is not changeing the law but judges who when they have a convicted person before them apply the law in a more harsh manner than some do at present.
We also coul'd go along the lines of electing the judicary and then maybe they will live in the real world like the rest of us.
Being in the party I am I am probably talking out of turn on the law and order issue but still this is my view.
To me it shoul'd have not been announced until after the general election then people might take a different approach to this particular peice of legislation.

But this proposed change has been being discussed for ages now. It would be very sad if government had to grind to a halt from a year before a possible general election just in case people said new laws were only being proposed because an election was imminent. :)

Yes it is indeed sad that this is the case but the goverment have lost all credibility and so people will be thinking that its all about the election.
I have not heard what the judges think about this I wonder if thet are in favour of this proposal.
I bet liberty and the so called left are not in favour of this either and neither am I.
I say again it smacks of politics.

If it is relevent to the case in hand then yes, otherwise no

I'd be reluctant to do anything which takes the pressure off the police to collect proper evidence.
I remember the police pulling in 4 men for the murder of newspaper delivery boy Carl Bridgewater. They all had petty criminal records and the police made the evidence "fit" as they were sure that they were guilty based on their (non violent) records
The result being 4 innocent men in prison (one died there)and an evil thug walking around free.
If previous records are available to juries, you'll end up with a lot more miscarriages of justice, greater police incompetence and the guilty walking freein some cases

agreed, besides which, previous convictions are made known to the court for sentencing puropses.

But a defendant should be tried on the charges they are facing, and be left open to malicious convictions by juries who "know he's a bad 'un so he is guilty".

I think that we must exercise a degree of care here. Offenses against children quite rightly revolt all decent people, but are we not seeing here the 'thin end of the wedge' to reversing the precedent that the ‘burden of proof’ MUST lay with the prosecution to 'make their case'? If the prosecution can be permitted to go for a conviction on the 'presumption of guilt' due to a past offense rather than be obliged to seek a conviction on the 'presentation of evidence' then we are undermining the entire principles of British justice.

In EU law (Corpus Juris) The 'Burden of proof' lies with the defendant to 'prove' their innocence.

Am I being cynical in seeing an attempt by Mr Blunkett to continue to subjugate British law to fall into line with EU legal requirements?