NationStates

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. At the end of section 3, in

Notwithstanding the above, member state courts must not admit relevant evidence of the victim’s past sexual behavior or proclivity that is substantially more prejudicial against the victim than it is probative to the satisfaction of the crime’s elements.

Is the invocation of 'relevant evidence' intentional?

"No, it appears unnecessary. I will so adjust."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Old Hope wrote:OOC:One measure to comply with this resolution is to assume that the alleged victim is a victim, and, upon a final Not Guilty verdict, to disapply all victim protection(because that person has been proven to be not the victim).

Old Hope again is too clever by half. A not proven or not guilty verdict does not invalidate a crime's occurrence. OJ being found not guilty of murder did not raise Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman from the dead.

Hm. Well, yes.

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.

Why only against minors?

Old Hope wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Old Hope again is too clever by half. A not proven or not guilty verdict does not invalidate a crime's occurrence. OJ being found not guilty of murder did not raise Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman from the dead.

Hm. Well, yes.

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.

Why only against minors?

"Because predators of children operate with distinctive patterns and predictable escalation. Where relevant, their past history is indicative of a pattern and mode of operation, especially when the sex, age, relation, and nature of the crime are very similar. An accused's past abuse of prepubescent boys under his care is material in a case where the victim is a prepubescent boy under his care and not a teenaged girl with no prior affiliation based on sexual predator pathology. In such limited cases, the public interest in preventing grooming and abuse patterns to continue outweigh individual privacy concerns. The pathology of sexual predators against children is uniquely concerning."

Old Hope wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Old Hope again is too clever by half. A not proven or not guilty verdict does not invalidate a crime's occurrence. OJ being found not guilty of murder did not raise Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman from the dead.

Hm. Well, yes.

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.

Why only against minors?

OOC: I imagine it's a lot easier for someone who commits sexual assault on an adult not to do it again. But a predator is gonna predate. Hence the rights of the accused might (depending on the member nation) permit not bringing up a previous charge for assault against an adult victim, whereas there is no state of nature in which assault of a minor is ever irrelevant.

Mind you, I think any previous sexual assault conviction is relevant, but I can conceive of someone innocent in a given case who was guilty in a previous case, and the info about the prior case being prejudicial to the jury. Member states might reasonably have differing laws on that particular issue. But someone previously convicted of assault on a minor cannot be given any such leeway.