Our View: Juries should know some accused pedophiles’ pasts

In any contest for public sympathy, a violated child will be a hands-down winner over a suspected pedophile every time. That’s as it should be.

The American criminal justice system, meanwhile, was built on an insistence that defendants – even those accused of egregious crimes – be judged according to facts and evidence, not emotion and sympathy. That, too, is as it should be.

But when safeguarding a suspect’s rights allows a pedophile to avoid accountability for victimizing the child, there is an imbalance that needs correction.

That’s the objective behind a delicately crafted bill now being considered by the Washington Legislature, which is entering the homestretch of its 2008 session. Substitute Senate Bill 6933 would relax an evidentiary rule that now generally prevents juries from hearing evidence of a sex crime defendant’s history.

Traditionally, courts have been appropriately wary of permitting testimony about old convictions and suspicions to taint jurors’ minds. State rules of evidence say that even relevant evidence can be excluded if its value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

But there’s such a thing as being too wary. Federal rules, which SSB 6933 reflects, are more flexible than existing Washington state rules. So are those in some other states, including Oregon and California. Even in Washington, a defendant with a history of offenses against the same victim can have his past behavior introduced into evidence to show a pattern.

Some offenders demonstrate similar patterns, not necessarily toward the same people, but toward types of people. Children, for instance.

In those cases, a jury who never learns that the 55-year-old defendant has been accused numerous times and possibly convicted of child molestation can have a hard time believing that such a person would abruptly develop such disturbing tendencies so late in life. Thus may serial offenders escape accountability.

Under SSB 6933, it would fall to the trial judge to determine if the evidence about previous incidents had enough merit to be introduced. It would be up to the jury, of course, to decide if that evidence was persuasive. And, as always, higher courts would have a chance to weigh in if an appeal revealed that errors had been made.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Chris Marr, D-Spokane, is neither an attack on the Bill of Rights nor an invitation to vigilantism. It is a way to bring the scales of justice into balance.

The Senate already has approved the bill 49-0, but it still has to clear the House – and quickly. Unless the House Judiciary Committee gives its approval today, the measure’s prospects are gloomy.