Having some practical experience in this arena, I can tell you that where real intimidation exists, anonymity in the courtroom provides only a figleaf cover. That's why, for instance, in mafia cases the FBI has a witness relocation program. And where intimidation exists, there is such a likelihood for the witness to finger an innocent person (I had that happen in one gang-related case) that the inability to confront the witness is more likely to doom the innocent. Nor are witnesses who are genuinely in fear more likely to come forward to testify. A friend was recently knifed to death defending his cousin who refuses to talk to the cops even though she claims the attacker was a stranger and she has no valid basis for her fear of retribution.

But why should reality intrude? The real issue is that the government wants to spy more thoroughly on you, bring in tainted and bogus evidence and limit a defendant's ability to reveal the rot behind the lovely façade. That's why being able to confront one's accuser was invented in the first place.
Madame X | 06.23.08 - 2:42 pm | #