CrimeStoppers runs a commercial with a punch line saying: "You stay anonymous, criminals don't."
So why cannot witnesses stay anonymous in court?
The nonsense that the accused has the right to face their accuser was all right 50plus years ago, but now this gives them the "right" to harass or worse, with near total immunity.
Our criminal 'justice' system screams out for some serious revision.
Sixty-seven years ago, Igor Gouzenko worked as a code clerk at the Russian embassy in Ottawa, he defected and gave the western world a huge amount of valuable information. He testified behind a screen or wore a hood. It was of critical importance that his identity remain unknown, for it was believed the KGB would assassinate him.
Why is it that a witness does not have the same rights and protection Igor had? Perhaps it is that we just don't count.
It is a mortal cinch that many will not go into court to testify against some of the vicious, not-so-poor white trash who will maybe take them out. And even if that does not happen, harassment can and likely will occur, and physical abuse is certainly not unknown.
People are not too eager to put themselves or the well being of their families on the line in order to testify against some rotter.
Our courts are woefully ineffectual for real punishment for serious crimes.
Punishment all too often does not happen in any meaningful way. Many of us have little trust or respect for our so-called justice system.
Giving a witness a new identity may sound like a good idea, but the fact is, it is not. One will not be able to have any contact with family and friends if relocated. Where's the justice in this for the witness?
Robert W. Stirling, Maple Ridge