NEWS
Past convictions now valid in sex offense trials
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Courtney Johnson:
- Construction pops up on State Street this spring (November 6, 2007)
- Woods ahead in fundraising race (March 28, 2007)
- E-mail sparks privacy concern (October 9, 2007)
- Big Ten Network reaches deal with UW housing (August 31, 2007)
- City agency to run Halloween entertainment (May 10, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Cab drivers in questionable condition? (March 26, 2004)
- Group files suit over drug law (March 29, 2006)
- Law denies aid to students with drug convictions (April 1, 2002)
- Ochoa represents strong WIP success (February 27, 2006)
- Gundrum renames Avery bill (November 15, 2005)
by Courtney Johnson
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Gov. Jim Doyle signed a bill Tuesday, which will allow all past convictions to be used against perpetrators in sex offense trials in the state.
Currently, an offender's prior convictions for similar acts are not admissible as character evidence in trials. The new law, however, allows state prosecutors and district attorneys to use past convictions for sex crimes to prove that the offender has a propensity towards sexual offense.
Doyle's spokesperson Anne Lupardus said past offenses "are often strong indicators of character and the types of offenses [people] might commit in the future."
She added that allowing the admission of past convictions for similar offenses would be a useful tool for prosecutors in trying to protect the public.
While the bill only applies to cases of first-degree sexual assault and first-degree sexual assault involving a child, Lupardus said such reforms will help protect the state's children.
"The governor is a [former] prosecutor himself, and he has spent many years in law enforcement trying to lock up dangerous sex offenders, especially those that prey on young children," Lupardus said.
However, those that oppose the bill say it is prejudicial.
"It's a cardinal rule of law that, when you try a person for a crime, that you are trying the person as to whether he or she committed that crime," said Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, who voted against the bill.
Risser added that it is not necessarily true that someone is more likely to commit a sex crime if they have in the past.
"We have rules and procedures that should be followed, and just because a person is accused of a sex crime, we shouldn't change the rules for that particular offense," Risser said.
Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, who co-authored the bill with Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said in a release that the legislation will "provide an extra layer of security to protect our citizens and our children from these dangerous criminals."
However, Risser maintained that a jury would be "unduly influenced" by the knowledge of a prior conviction, likely because of the emotional nature of sex offenses.
In addition, he said the state is going down a "slippery slope" when it changes the rules for alleged sex offenders, adding that the bill was even opposed by the American Bar Association.
But according to Zien, similar legislation was recently signed into law in Michigan and several other states are considering related proposals.
The bill was passed 74-20 in the Assembly and 24-8 in the Senate, before being signed by the governor Tuesday.
