Either they should both get or neither should get it. To give anonymity to one and deny it to the other interferes with discovery and the entire concept of a fair trial.

BolshevikMuppet · 2010-12-11T13:24:06+00:00

Holy mother of god, can we stop misusing legal terms and concepts? I mean, I'm all for calling a spade a spade when there's injustice (I think it should be anonymous for both parties, personally) but there's no problem here with discovery or a fair trial. Unless Sweden is really different, at least. I'll be looking at this in terms of American law, since that's what AnnArchist is invoking anyway (given that America has abnormally liberal discovery powers, to make up for notice pleading)

The anonymity of the accuser is saying that the name is never released to the press, and there's a gag order on the jury, the attorneys, ect. That's not the same thing as a protective order, which would make the information undiscoverable. The defense can certainly know who the accuser is, and find information about her.

Your objection is only their treatment in the media, which is very different

Quazz · 2010-12-10T18:29:20+00:00

Giving it to both promotes secret trial.

Giving it to neither promotes public smearing.

What we have now is unfair.

I don't see any good options, though I'm inclined to go for neither.

Comments