Opinion ID: 2096207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Recidivism Rationale

Text: Implicit in the application of our exception and those applied across the county under different names is the assumption that sexual offenders repeat their crimes more often than other criminals. To a person of normal, social and moral sensibility, the idea of the sexual exploitation of the young is so repulsive that it's almost impossible to believe that none but the most depraved and degenerate would commit such an act. Friedrich, 398 N.W.2d at 763. The Indiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae, calls such a belief ignorant and founded on myth, (amicus brief at 35), yet we are inclined to accept the conclusion that recidivisim among sexual deviates is quite high. [6] This alone, however, cannot justify continued adherance to the depraved sexual instinct exception. We have no doubt that recidivism among those who violate drug laws, for instance, is extraordinarily high. [7] We do not allow the State to introduce previous drug convictions in its case-in-chief in a prosecution for selling illegal drugs, however, even though it can hardly be disputed that such evidence would be highly probative. This exclusionary rule renders inadmissible character evidence offered solely to show the accused's propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged. The rationale behind this general rule, sometimes termed the propensity rule, is that the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighs any probative value. See Warner v. State (1991), Ind., 579 N.E.2d 1307. If a high rate of recidivism cannot justify a departure from the propensity rule for drug defendants, logic dictates it does not provide justification for departure in sex offense cases.