In 2011, McLaughlin killed another teen, this time the daughter of his former partner. A jury has this week found McLaughlin guilty of murder after he killed 13-year-old Jade Bayliss before setting fire to her house.
Thanks to New Zealand's legal system, the jury was not allowed to know of McLaughlin's previous teen killing. Imagine how those jury members would have felt after this was made public if they had delivered a not guilty verdict.
What is even more ridiculous is Jade's mother Tina did not know about McLaughlin's past, despite approaching police with concerns about his odd behaviour days before Jade was killed.
Police have since said their hands were tied because under New Zealand law there are constraints on what they can disclose to other parties about a person's previous criminal history.
What rubbish. If she were tapped on the shoulder and given a warning, Jade might be alive today.
At last Justice Minister Judith Collins has realised this law is a bit strange and has promised to take a look at it. But let's not stop there. There should be serious consideration given to allowing jurors to know relevant convictions for any accused.
This issue was a huge debate in 2007, when it was revealed former Rotorua policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum were already convicted rapists serving jail time while they stood trial for raping local woman Louise Nicholas. Who knows what the outcome of that trial would have been if the law was different?
In my view, it needs to be changed. When you rent your house, you do background checks on prospective tenants, when you hire a babysitter you check references. People's backgrounds are entirely relevant.
The onus has always been on the Crown to prove someone is guilty but, if you've got a dodgy past, surely it's up to you to prove to society you're a changed person.
Maybe a law change will make people think twice about having a record.
