AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Because disclosing previous convictions would be perceived to be prejudicial, ie they might unfairly and unjustly sway the jury towards a guilty verdict.How the fuck is it that previous convictions for sexual offences "aren't relevant" and are thus only revealed after the jury makes a decision? Shouldn't juries be made aware of an established pattern of behaviour? Seems like something that protects serial offenders rather than the innocent.
Fun fact: Not about rape, but when my father assaulted me for the last time when I was around 24-years-old, and after neighbours had heard me screaming and called the cops... and the cops turned up and treated it as a 'domestic' breach of the peace-type incident... I subsequently went to the cop shop and urged them to press charges against my father. I pointed out that I had been taken into care at the age of 13, due to being physically abused, and I had been told when I was 21-years-old, by a senior social worker, (who I saw after I'd requested access to my care records), that the only reason my father wasn't prosecuted when I was taken into care was because the social services hadn't followed their own procedures.
Fast forward a few years later and I'd been assaulted by him, again, (because reasons, because complicated), and when I pointed out to the cops that he'd done it before and he'd do it again, the cops basically told me that the historical stuff was irrelevant, because even if they did do something about the recent assault, all the historical stuff didn't count, it couldn't be brought up in court, because he hadn't been convicted, and even if he had been convicted, it couldn't be brought up in court, because that would be prejudicial if the jury knew about any previous convictions.
And then when I asked what would it take for them to actually do something to bring my father to justice, after he'd recently assaulted me, and after I'd been taken into care as a teenager due to being physically [and emotionally and psychologically] abused by him... the CID officer told me "attempted murder," to which I replied that "there's a fine line between attempted murder and murder, and what happens if you don't get there in time the next time?" (bearing in mind the cops had only turned up because neighbours had heard my screams and called the cops).
And that was when I realised the cops, the authorities, the system, the State, would do fuck all to protect me from him, and I then became totally estranged from all members of my family for around eight years (until an uncle tracked me down through an old school friend), but I didn't get to see my beloved grandparents again before they died.
But basically, that's how I know that you can't use previous allegations or convictions against a defendant who is on trial, because that information would prejudice their right to a free trial. Other cases would only be admissible if they were charged and tried with multiple offences at the same time.