Todd Allen wrote:
In any jurisdiction which guarantees the right to non-secret trials, they actually sure do. I happen to like the idea that I cannot be tried in secret if I'm accused of a crime, and that an accuser must be confident enough of his/her accusation to actually come forward by name. It would be a poor society indeed that allowed people to be imprisoned on the basis of secret accusations by anonymous people at closed trials.
It depends somewhat on the nature of the crime. For example, courts do not disclose the identities of children who are sexually molested, even though those children may be called upon to testify in court. In some such cases, pains are taken to ensure that the victims do not have to face the accused directly in court (for example, by using videotaped testimony, or by using third-party testimony rather than the testimony of the victim at trial).
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
In any jurisdiction which guarantees the right to non-secret trials, they actually sure do. I happen to like the idea that I cannot be tried in secret if I'm accused of a crime, and that an accuser must be confident enough of his/her accusation to actually come forward by name. It would be a poor society indeed that allowed people to be imprisoned on the basis of secret accusations by anonymous people at closed trials.
It depends somewhat on the nature of the crime. For example, courts do not disclose the identities of children who are sexually molested, even though those children may be called upon to testify in court. In some such cases, pains are taken to ensure that the victims do not have to face the accused directly in court (for example, by using videotaped testimony, or by using third-party testimony rather than the testimony of the victim at trial).
| Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
All of those things, as stated earlier, reflect poorly. Convicting someone of a crime should be on the basis of an accusation by a named, identifiable accuser who can be confronted by the accused (subject to observation in the courtroom, of course, and intimidation and the like should be strictly disallowed), not something else. One should never be convicted or imprisoned on a basis like this: "Well who said I did something wrong?" "Well we can't tell you that, but here's a scrambled videotape of their accusation." "Well that's not true, I want to cross-examine them! And I want to know who they are, what if it's someone who has a grudge against me?" "Sorry, won't be possible."
</offtopic>
All of those things, as stated earlier, reflect poorly. Convicting someone of a crime should be on the basis of an accusation by a named, identifiable accuser who can be confronted by the accused (subject to observation in the courtroom, of course, and intimidation and the like should be strictly disallowed), not something else. One should never be convicted or imprisoned on a basis like this: "Well who said I did something wrong?" "Well we can't tell you that, but here's a scrambled videotape of their accusation." "Well that's not true, I want to cross-examine them! And I want to know who they are, what if it's someone who has a grudge against me?" "Sorry, won't be possible."
I think the accused (and their legal team) gets to know who it is, it's just not released to the public. And I think they do get cross-examined, just from behind a screen or on a TV monitor.