Keep in mind that these facts are used to determine the sentence for the crime for which the defendant has been convicted.

The judge can use other facts to determine what the sentence will be. He's not getting sentenced for crimes for which he has been aquitted. The sentencing for what he has been convicted of can be influenced by his prior actions. Example- if someone is convicted of a crime which has a five to 15 year sentence and there is no evidence indicating that he should receive a harsh sentence, he may get five years. On the other hand, if he has a history of being a scumbag but no criminal convictions, maybe he'll get seven or eight years.

That's how I am interpreting it, anyway. Nobody is getting sentenced for crimes they don't commit.

Really? The arresting officer is the only possible person who could bungle the evidence? There aren't more people in the bureaucratic process that could mess it up? If that's truly what you believe, your understanding of the legal system is lacking.



No one gets sentenced for crimes they are not convicted of. Prior behavior can be used to determine the sentence for a crime a person has been convicted of.

No, of course there are all sorts of other crime scene investigators that can jeapordise a court case if they don't follow correct protocol. They all have to do their job properly so that the courts can deliberate over the evidence. The system certainly isn't perfect, but that is no argument to relinquish the basic principle of civilised justice.



Prior behavior that they haven't been convicted of. I fairly obviously have no problem with prior convictions being considered in sentencing, but I do have a problem with sentencing being based on 'he looks a bit dodgy'. A first-time offender will no longer be treated as a first-time offender because of crimes he's been acquitted of. It reduces a not guilty verdict to not guilty... yet.



Right, so he's been accused of being a scumbag, with no evidence to prove any wrongdoing, so he should receive a harsher sentence. In civilised society, justice is not carried out on baseless accusations.

Can you read?

...even when the conduct did not result in a conviction

That does not mean that it is not evidence. Your phrases "not evidence" and "baseless accusations" are quite incorrect.

But if the evidence was not good enough for a conviction, why the **** should it be good enough for sentencing? It was clearly dismissed in the previous case. Evidence that has been dismissed is little more than accusation.

I've already explained this.

In addition, just because someone is considered "not guilty" does not mean they didn't commit the crime. If you actually believe that, you really need to learn about the court system.

Ever hear about a judge ruling a DUI case 'not guilty' because the others that day were guilty, and 'he can't have everyone be guilty'? I have.

Where is anything about dismissed evidence even mentioned? Regardless, evidence from a case could be perfectly valid and person could be acquitted by a jury of idiots.

On the day I went to court for my OUI there were many other OUI offenders there too. I was last, alphabetically. I got to watch every one of them plead not guilty and the judge just sat there, flabbergasted. When it came time for my plea of 'guilty' he nearly fell out of his seat. Court is actually entertaining to watch when you live in a small redneck town.

You're also under the assumption that a "jury of peers" is composed of intelligent people, when many times people are just ****ing stupid. The "CSI effect" plays into this.

There's a local guy who's robbed convenience stores a half dozen times but hasn't been convicted. There's video, audio, his ****ing handprint is on the glass counter where he vaulted to get the cash. So just because a jury didn't get the magic CSI evidence of hair and DNA and let him go, everything else is null and void? If/when this ******* finally gets convicted the other times should be ignored?

Oh, and he's killed a clerk once, too.

The courts know he's guilty, there isn't even legal technicalities that he's getting off on, it's the ****ing idiots that populate the jury that are letting him go.

You seem to be basing your arguments on a utopian view of the court system. Guess what? People are stupid, the system isn't infallible, and the ****tards on the jury don't magically make the murdering crook innocent.

What's OUI?

Operating Under the Influence. OUI/OWI/DUI/DWI.

Then why not get rid of the jury system entirely?

I don't have a view utopian view of the court system, but I do have pretty basic standards and principles for human rights.

We're talking about patterns of prior criminal conduct. Just because someone has not been convicted of a crime does not mean that they have not committed criminal conduct.