Do you think a suspects prior bad acts should be known by the jury?

So long as the acts have something to do with the trial, sure. I don't care if they once ran a red light and crashed their car on purpose for insurance fraud, if the charge is rape. One has nothing to do with the other. Now, if the person had been charged previously for sexual assault, damn right I would want to know.

.............I'm not sure, I guess it would mean if it would be whether that would lopsidedly decide the judgment of the case, by knowing evidence that may not be pertinent to the man on trial, I may be wrong on what I'm saying, because I'm not a legal expert on such things, interesting question You pose though........... thanks.........

everyone should get a second chance, and the jury would be biased by whatever their previous crime was. it shouldn't affect their ruling unless it's directly related to the current case.

Only if the past actions are relevant to the trial.

It's not relevant to the issue at hand unless the person has been accused of murder and is known to have killed before - I think that would be relevant. If somebody drug up every stupid thing I've ever done to make a point about one thing I did, I would most llikely be judged to be at the very least insane.

It shows the character of a defendant. Their good deeds should also be brought up to do this more thoroughly.

Yes it can be very important to understand the story of the suspect.

hard one to answer, could be yes, and no, yes if he/she was once before found guilty of the same crime, no, he/she is being tried for what they just done..not the past.

because otherwise they have to assume this is the first offense, just a stupid mistake. Repeated offenses aren't just stupid mistakes that you learned from.

it could aid in the evidence placed before the jury AND it could also aid in figuring out the motives and patterns of the suspect and whether or not it fits with the person's who committed the crime. it could help put a connection between that person and the crime.

He/she is being tried for a particular act (or set of acts) and only evidence regarding those acts should be submitted to the jury.

It would give insight to who that person is over all,

establishes character

agree

otherwise it will influence the judgment

it shows that they may be a deviant

For actual convictions? No. Your past is not on trial and is therefore irrelevant. A jury must therefore focus solely on the evidence and testimony given on the current and relevant charges.

Now, if a defendant is found guilty, then the past can be brought out for sentencing. Is this a pattern? Is this a one time offense? Okay, now we can use a person's past, but other than that, a fair trial means that past events are no longer relevant.

If the defense is doing that to the witnesses to discredit their testimony.

For example:If a girl is raped by a man and they are saying that she is a person that sleeps around then use the prior history of the defendant against him to make it fair.

It's part of their criminal history and could or could not relate to the current crime. Regardless it needs to be used as a sort character reference

need to know if there is a history of criminal acts

If lets say he a record for being a rapist. Or murder. Or drug dealer

For me this is a tough one. Civil case, no problem. I firmly believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I think it's fine for when setting bail, or if it's up before a grand jury, but when it comes to the actual trial, I get cautious. The prosecution has a duty to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Their case MUST be based on the evidence that relates to the case. Because someone stole a candy bar doesn't go to showing they are guilty of murder. For me, the process is far more important than the outcome. It is the process that protects the truly innocent.

*EDIT* And as Jackie G below says, it is a valuable tool in sentencing.

agree

The evidence alone should prove someones guilt or not, otherwise people will jump to conclusions and often the wrong one.

Yes, if there's a pattern of their crimes, the jury should know about it.

They need to know if he has priors. Convicting someone who has killed 3 people is a lot easier than convicting someone that has never killed before. (Or whatever the crime may be)

Only at sentencing - our justice says that past bad acts for which time has been served should not be considered for a current alleged crime.

Here's my thoughts ..
if there's a distinct pattern .. to the crimes committed ..
the crimes are the same now ..
and these heinous ones ..
the Jury should have the knowledge that this is NOT the first time ..

(I would not want to know .. that any jury had no knowledge of the nature of the crimes, let the criminal off with benefit of doubt .. and the criminal once again returned to predation (more innocence lost)).

If I acted poorly in the past . . . involved in petty crimes (maybe I was publicly intoxicated, maybe I got into a fight when I was 21, maybe I got caught with one marijuana joint) -- then I find myself in a murder trial -- NO, I wouldn't want my past brought up. Maybe the events occurred some time ago.

Even though I can see everyone taking another side, I just can see things go badly for someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I wouldn't want that miscarriage of justice to play out on me or anyone I love.

Are said "bad acts" directly related to the case? If not then no. You are there to evaluate the evidence for what they are currently being charged for. Having done something in the past is no promise of what they'll do in the future. Such information could lead to you using their prior deeds to pass judgemnt instead of the evidence being presented. unless you want to turn the courtrooms into our political system where mudslinging is rampant I highly advise against it. Besides consider yourself in such a case. Would you want something you did as a stupid kid or adult from decades ago being presented as "evidence"? No this is not objective in the least bit.

Whether or not there is a history of offenses could be vital.

lets you see their character

they are aren't they?

not allowed

If he/she is a rapist, killer, or molester I would want to know if this is the first time or the 10th time because it shows a pattern of behavior

only relevant ones.
If as a child i was caught shoplifting, and 40 years later i accidently hit a man with my car, i wouldn't want that connected, with the time it's no longer relevant.
But if i was on trial as a suspect for murder, and 3 years earlier i'd burned down an orphanage and it's residents, then that would seem relevant.

agree

It shows a pattern in the person's behavior.

agree

If they did something horrible once they could do it again