Quote:
Originally Posted by Solid Snake
Sure. My experiences in law school have taught me that:
A: FRE 404(a) deliberately prevents the exact "past acts" evidence you've mentioned from being introduced as evidence against a criminal defendant, precisely because a system of criminal law depends on determining present as opposed to past guilt or innocence;
B: A system based upon pure discretion by different administrators with different personal preferences and different policy interpretations inevitably is self-destructive, coercive, inefficient, ineffective and enables favoritism and petty patronage to trump actual determinations of offenses.
|
Wouldn't this be in relation to...well,
guilt of a crime?
I find it really really hard to believe that a judge isn't allowed to look at somebody who has been demonstratively proven to be guilty and think "This is his first offense, the punishment should be light" or "This is the sixth offense, something harsher is necessary."
If that's so then can perhaps we consider that TDK doesn't have much recent history of faffing about in such a manner, but NonCon does?