While in most cases past behavior can indicate what to expect for the future,
it doesn't always do so.
People can change and thereby alter how they
respond.
This factor alone is why someone deserves a fair trial on a new
crime of the same type they have committed many times in the past. Their past
should not be used as "evidence" to convict them on the new crime. It should be
used to decide a stronger punishment is needed if convicted - but should not be
a factor to convict. Possibly be used to show state of mind if the defense
tries to argue the person "would never do such a thing", but otherwise not to
convict.
I would agree that in most cases*, sadly people
choose not to change.
In the given case with regards Hogan, I'm more
interested to see if the Appeals Court will send it back for review because of
Hogan's public admissions. I'm of the opinion this factor should be a "no
brainer". However, there have been times where my interpretation of what should
be right does not coincide with the Law's interpretation of what is
right.
Do I think it should potentially go back due to Hogan's past and
how he answered in voir dire? I don't really know. But my core interest in the
Appeal is definitely directed more towards his public
admissions.
*: The caveat being that this is based on my
own experiences - not any particular scientific method of research.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
