Yes, jurors should be told of the previous convictions of the man in the dock
The practice of not allowing jurors to know of the previous convictions of the man in the dock is rooted in the principle that they must come to their decision based on the facts presented before them in court – about that particular crime and nothing else.
In other words, that they should not have their judgement coloured by preconceptions or misconceptions about the accused, but decide on the facts alone.
But on this basis, jurors have come to some really questionable decisions – the most striking of the last few weeks being their decision that Pasqualino Cefai, who stabbed another man a full 14 times in the Gozo courthouse while the magistrate was right there, was not guilty of attempted murder but only of causing him serious injury.
So tell me, why would you stab somebody 14 times if you didn’t want to kill them? And of what would they have found Cefai guilty if his victim had died of his wounds?
Judge Michael Mallia, who locked this man up for the maximum possible on the jurors’ verdict (five years, with a couple of years for other things) is quoted in Times of Malta this morning:
In his judgment, Mr Justice Mallia commented on the recent introduction of the right of disclosure, giving people accused of a crime access to all the information the police have against them, as well as the right for the accused to be assisted by a lawyer.
He said these rights ought to be balanced out by allowing jurors to know about someone’s criminal record.
“This is innovative and there will be opposition but this is not new as the justice system in the UK already introduced, despite its conservativeness, as it helps the jurors in their judgment. This requires studies, especially on how it will affect the justice system,” he said.
24 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140618/local/gozo-stabbing-man-jailed-for-seven-years.523933
Agreed. With one caveat. Previous convictions should only be disclosed insofar as they are related or connected with the crime in the indictment. In other words, disclosure of past convictions should only occur in respect of their ability to evidence a pattern or correlation of some sort.
In the absence, if a jury is lumped with every God forsaken petty crime or contravention that a person would have been found guilty of then there is no way that such person will ever stand a chance. We must not forget that even career criminals may find themselves on trial for something which they did not commit.
Why not reconsider the trial by jury system and maybe scrap it?
Seeing that Times of Malta today states that the convicted man ‘terrorized Gozo’ and has been committing crime regularly since he was 16, one wonders whether the jurors were Gozitans.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140618/local/courtroom-stabbing-man-who-terrorised-gozo-jailed-for-seven-years.523933
“these rights ought to be balanced”
I don’t follow the judge’s reasoning. Is he saying that the right to be assisted by a lawyer and to have access to all evidence has unbalanced the system? What complete and utter tosh!
“it helps the jurors in their judgment”
Rather, it helps jurors in convicting the accused, not in judging the case before them.
The practice should remain as is. Presenting an accused’s criminal record to the jurors goes diametrically opposite to the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Regarding this particular case, to my mind enough evidence was presented in court to prove that the accused had intention to kill. You don’t stab someone 15 times in the head, neck, and torso, and keep stabbing after the victim falls to the ground, with the mere intention to cause injury.
Rather than presenting criminal records in court cases, I’d prefer giving judges the possibility of directing or over-riding juries’ verdicts.
No they should not unless there is a clear pattern of prior similar criminal acts as that term is understood in the law of evidence.
Otherwise the prejudice to the defendant far outweighs any probative value that a defendant’s prior record may have.
The way to deal with this sort of repeat offender is to have sentencing guidelines that provide for wider judicial discretion in imposing harsher sentences when sentencing a repeat offender with a long rap sheet. Eg. First time offender discretion to go below standard guidelines, second and third times within the guidelines, after that upward departure in the exercise of judicial discretion as long as that discretion is not abused.
Much that I respect Justice Mallia, I find his rationale totally off the mark and his statement untenable. On what grounds does he seek to compensate the introduction (long-awaited) right of disclosure, with the disclosure to the jury of the police conduct of the accused?
Whichever way you look at it, these are two distinct matters, which cannot be off-set, compensated, nor equated one against the other.
I find it truly shocking that Justice Mallia, would even implicitly suggest it, especially since the right of disclosure is a cornerstone of any democracy (true or alleged)
“So tell me, why would you stab somebody 14 times if you didn’t want to kill them?”
Precisely, Daphne. What went wrong with this case has nothing to do with not disclosing the accused’s criminal record to the jury.
I think Mr Justice Mallia’s suggestion is very dangerous in a world where it takes us just seconds to form an opinion of someone based on how they are dressed or their piercings or tattoos. In fact, the judge tempers his suggestion with, “This requires studies, especially on how it will affect the justice system.”
When I was a young boy, I came across a library book that showed a smart man and a scruffy man and, when you turned the page, the smart man was holding a dagger behind his back and the scruffy man a bouquet of roses.
I still have that image photographically burned in my head. I am very aware of the problem. And I still fall into the trap of judging people based on appearance, even though I think it’s a dumb thing to do. It’s just the way we are.
Besides, formally informing the jury in this way could open another ‘reasonable doubt’ line of defense in an appeal, where the accused’s lawyer argues they were unduly swayed by that information.
From terrorizing the whole of Gozo, he will now be promoted to terrorizing the whole of the prison facilities. What a ghastly creature.
I so totally agree!
Being from Gozo, I know what time of person he “is”. They said that he has a family mental problem but the real reason is that “hu huwa kiesah prima”
I couldn’t agree more.
It seems that our legislators only concerned with the rights of those who have shown a flagrant disregard of the rights of others.
How so very right!
The disclosure of the past criminal record to the empaneled jury is indispensable if the jurors are to assess reasonably the credibility of the accused’d evidence or the testimony adduced on his behalf.
I think every honest, law-abiding person in Malta dreads going to the criminal court because the system is so skewed against the victims. So much so that minor crimes are simply tolerated.
The last thing a juror needs is the thought that one day that nutter you put away for 20 years will be out and holding a big grudge.
If stabbing a person 14 times is not attempted murder then can some legal-beagle explain to me what is?
Maybe it has to be two dozen times minimum.
I would not be at all surprised if in our courts of law people think in terms of ravjul and pastizzi when considering stab wounds.
Halluna tridux.
Il-problema nahseb li hija l-gurija. Hafna drabi certu persuni ma jihdux riskju u dan johrog mill-fatt li rarament ir-rizultat jkun ta 9-0 anke jekk il-kas jkun car kristall filwaq li certu voti jkunu redikoli.
Ghalkemm fit-tejorija is-sistema hija tajba, fil-prattika naqbel li jkun hemm pool ta’ nies mic-Civil u forsi certu pensjonanti li jigu trained biex iservu ta’ gurija. Finalment imbaghad ghandu jkun il-magistrat jew l-imhallef li jaqqad is-sistema u xenarju kollu biex finalment tinghata s-sentenza.
crazy … and at least admit that CMB has sat on his laurels for so many years doing nothing about legal matters of the sort.
[Daphne – Who is CMB? You have a problem making yourself understood. Also, one rests on one’s laurels; one does not sit on them. And you are using the expression wrongly.]
I agree with the judge and with you. Jurors should know who they’re dealing with. I am not very much in favour of the jury system — I would prefer a bench trial with three judges for the more serious cases — but, once we have it, the law should be changed so that jurors know about previous convictions.
Update this morning:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140619/local/should-jurors-know-during-a-trial-of-persons-criminal-past.524106
And how did Pasqualino get back to court with a knife without this instrument being detected?
I too think that jurors should be informed about previous serious convictions of the accused. This would help them make a better-informed decision.
Withholding or filtering information to jurors is like treating them as idiots, but then you still expect them to come to the correct conclusion.
If this policy is to be implemented in our justice system, then it should be applied equally to all, not just to a random case as happened here.
While I am morally convinced that Mr.Cefai should have been found guilty of attempted murder I cannot agree with the idea that jurors should be told of the previous convictions of the man in the dock. The accused should be judged on the merits of the particular case in question.
I don’t agree at all. If there was a previous conviction it shows a pattern of behaviour. Why this over zealous need to protect the accused?
What about the victim?
Having a prior conviction also is essential in determining the punishment. If the same person committed the same crime twice he should pay accordingly and nt shown the same level of leniency as a first time offender.
And I really do mean ‘pay’. It is about time that community service is introduced.otherwise ultimately it is the taxpayer who is being punished for the crime having to pay for the offender’s stay as a ‘guest’ of the State.