kingdragonfly: I think we've gone too far with name suppression. Does anyone not get name suppression?

The latest murder trial, Tinder strangulation case, struck me as odd. Name suppression was given because the murderer was found guilty, but still had more similar ongoing murder trials .

The rationalization is the current law jurors are not supposed to know about similar convictions.

However what happens for serial offenders? Even cooperating serial offenders don't remember every victim.

The current law seems to have more to do with clearing police books than giving justice.

How does it make sense if you've been convicted of 10 burglaries, that jurors should not know this? After all the tax payers are paying for each trial. If a defendant's lawyer knows a client's similar crimes will be revealed, it's more likely to be quickly pleaded as guilty, and less likely to come to a jury trial.

If it does come to jury trial, it's likely to be over quickly.

Perhaps a law change that a criminal guilty convictions during a trial can be revealed, if it's within the last 7 years?

I can sort of see where they are coming from though...if I was a juror and I was told that Mr Badguy was a serial offender and had recently(ish) been found guilty of other crimes, I'd be biased. 

I'd be thinking he's guilty before seeing the evidence and would likely just want him locked up and out of my world for as long as possible. I don't think that's entirely fair - particularly if the offender is not actually guilty of the new crime, but simply of similar type and MO