Kenmoria wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"I have grave concerns about this proposal. It has never been the case under Havenic common law that bad character evidence can be put before the jury: such things almost always prejudice the jury away from a neutral perspective. We will therefore have no choice but to vote against an otherwise honourable piece of legislation."
“Ambassador, bad character evidence is not forced upon member states to legalise. It is prohibited for them to admit evidence regarding the victim’s past sexual behaviours in most cases, but it is not mandated for them to accept the evidence in the case that it is allowed.”
"I was referring to the following point:
Member state courts must admit relevant evidence that the accused was convicted of prior sexual crimes against minors in any case involving criminal sexual misconduct. Such evidence is relevant if, in addition tending to make an element of a crime more likely than not, the past crimes were materially similar to the present accusation. When weighing materiality, courts must consider the victim’s age, sex, relation to the accused, the nature of the assault or molestation, and other factors that may show a preference or mode of operation.
This is completely anathema to Havenic courts, not least because it was based on a false pretense. Some nations are perfectly capable of designing a system of rehabilitating those who have been convicted of offences against children. The fact that the proposer represents a nation whose justice system has not managed this is no reason to force other member states to lower the protections that they afford the accused."