The unconstitutionality of protecting the identity of the accuser and exploiting the identity of the accused
The day after William Kennedy Smith was accused, he was in every tabloid and on every TV screen; he came into supermarkets and bedrooms – most people saw more of him than of their families. But the identity of his accuser was kept so secret that few men would recognize her if they met her in a bar tonight The assumption is that the victim needs protection. But that’s assuming she’s the victim before the trial. If we know that, why have a trial? If a man is falsely accused, it is be who is victimized. Why are we protecting only her identity if the very purpose of a trial is to determine who is victimized, not to assume who is victimized?
In no other situation is the accuser’s identity protected. If a man accused Jackie Kennedy Onassis of trying to murder him, would his identity be protected? To protea a woman and make millions of dollars of profit exposing the man leaves a man damaged for life even if he is found not guilty. Is this true? Well, before the Kennedy Smith trial, how would you have felt if your daughter called you and said she was dating a Kennedy – William Kennedy Smith? How would you feel now?