Thomas Dalton wrote:
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 never said anything about a "scrambled videotape" or suggested that people on trial should not be allowed to know the identities of their accusers. I said that in some cases measures are taken to protect vulnerable victims (such as children who have been molested) from having to testify in front of the person who is accused of their abuse. This does NOT involve "scrambled" videotape, and the identity of the victim is not withheld from the accused. Sometimes the victim is kept from having to testify through negotiations; for example, a perpetrator may know that conviction is inevitable and may choose to forego the opportunity to cross-examine the victim in exchange for some sort of plea-bargaining consideration. Other times the prosecution may protect the victim from testifying by using other evidence to build its case; for example, a forensics expert could testify about bruises found on the victim, or about semen that matched the DNA of the accused individual (and of course the defense has the opportunity to cross-examine the forensics expert).
My main point, though, which Thomas Dalton seems to have completely forgotten in the course of his revery, is that there is no requirement for disclosing the identity of the victim OUTSIDE THE COURT, especially in cases of sensitive crimes. I agree with Thomas that accused individuals should have the right to confront their accusers (with the clarification that "victim" and "accuser" are not necessarily the same individual). However, it would also be bad if we had a court system which automatically published the identities of all victims of crimes.
-------------------------------- | 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 --------------------------------