[ad_1]
The South Dakota House of Representatives has rejected a bill that would have allowed a defendant’s past behavior to be used as evidence in sex crimes trials.
Federal courts allow the use of past acts of accused sex offenders, but South Dakota state courts do not. In some cases, this includes those convicted of sex crimes.
Opponents mounted legal arguments against the bill. Rep. Chris Carr, R-Sioux Falls, said this could mean a wrongful conviction leading to a conviction.
“They said the new rules could significantly weaken the protections that have protected people accused of criminal cases and parties to civil cases from unfair prejudice,” Kerr said. and protect society. But do you know what’s more important than that? We don’t convict innocent people based on past accusations or past actions. ”
But the bill’s sponsors say this is a question of fairness to victims. Rep. Becky Drury, R-Rapid City, the House’s lead sponsor, said it’s a matter of eliminating legal double standards.
“You can bring in the woman’s history, past dates, places she went for entertainment, all of that, but you can’t bring in the defendant,” Drury said. If it is fair to bring women’s actions and past actions into open court and use them as part of legal proceedings, why can’t we do the same in federal court? ”
Drury said legal arguments don’t work.
“It’s not mandatory. It’s all up to the judge’s discretion whether these previous actions can be brought in,” Drury said. “One of the comments was, ‘It’s not constitutional.'” Well, if they’re doing it now in the Eighth Circuit, I say it’s constitutional. When you see this, you wonder why more women don’t come forward. Why do you do that?
Drury said male victims have the same rights in court as female victims.
The bill passed in the Senate with just eight “no” votes, but failed in the House Thursday by a vote of 37-32.
[ad_2]
Source link
