In eight pages this paper discusses whether or not trials should allow prior convictions to be introduced with English law being the primary focus. Eighteen sources are listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: TS14_TEprevcn.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
is natural that when making this judgement the jury will want to have as much information as possible to help them in their deliberations. . One controversial factor that juries
may want to know, but are generally denied is that of any previous convictions (Wadham, 2002). The relevance may be seen by a jury as additional information, however, it may
also be prejudicial, especially in a legal system where defendant are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The issue of previous convictions is
contentious, yet in 2001 it became known that the government was reconsidering the current position and changing it from the position under the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 where previous convictions
are generally disallowed from the trial (Barsby and Birch, 1996). There are augments on both sides, there are many cases, some
of which we will look at, where a previous conviction may have been indicative of another offence, yet it is also argued that just because one crime take place it
does not mean another will occur. Even the jurors that would like the evidence recognise it is likely to prejudice their judgement (BBC News, 2002, Wadham, 2002).It has also been
argued that with falling rating the government want to increase the conviction rate, believing that many offenders may be gaining release when they are guilty. However, the revealing of a
pervious record and the prejudice it is suspected of causing may also lead to convictions based on perception and assumption rather than evidence. With the removal of the right to
silence and the ability for the judge to instruct a jury that they may "draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper" (Lexis, 2003), then this may be seen