Reasons why I reluctantly support disclosing accusers identity.

Rape shield laws are designed to protect the victim and assure that said victim will be willing to testify in a grimly trial against the accused. In most cases, it is a good thing. In high profile cases, it is nonsensical and may actually hinder the pursuit of justice. In any rape trial, the accused already knows who is accusing him. If he or his cronies want to cause harm to the victim or bully her into silence, he already knows her identity and is only prohibited from doing anything illegal by the police. In small towns, rape shield laws allow for her embarrassment to not go beyond her inner circle and at worst the whole small town. This is good, as if she feels too stigmatize after the trial she can move. In high profile cases, the whole country knows and any nut can look up her info on the internet, regardless of any shield law. Now, allow to give 3 reasons pro and con for lifting rape shield laws in high profile cases.

Pro lifting the shield law:
1) The main reason the public should know the accusers identity ESPECIALLY in high profile cases is the possibility of gaining more complete information in a case. Anyone who knew the accuser or the accused that might have seen them that night has already come forward or been interviewed by police. However, strangers that may recognize a face or remember something shady, might not put the big name case together with something minor they might have seen, if they don't see an image of the accuser. Example, if someone driving around the Kroger late that night that wasn't from the area saw the 2nd stripper and the accuser laughing in a car at a traffic light, he might think nothing of it, even with the trail publicity. However, if he saw that same girls face plastered all over the news, he would have valuable info for police.

2) It would seem like the justice system is assigning values to how bad a crime is. Rape is a horrible crime. False accusations of rape are also a crime. While it is true that when comparing their wickedness, rape outweighs the other. However, since we live in a country that values innocent until proven guilty as a mantra, technically both parties are innocent of both crimes until proven otherwise. Therefore, it stands to reason that the justice system is valuing crimes that technically haven't been committed and allowing one side to be exposed while the other hidden. You either show both parties as potential lawbreakers, or you shield both of them as innocent. Since again, we value innocent until ... , it would seem that the shielding of both parties until the conclusion of proceeding is logical. Unfortunately, they have already shown only one side and now must make amends by showing the other side. If only that the public can get a more balanced view of the situation.

3) While proponent of shield laws say that its existence promotes more rape victims coming forward, it also has joined forced with our lawsuit culture to create an evil monster. Kobe Bryant's case was tossed, yet he still paid the accuser a rather large sum. In this case, Jesse Jackson will pay for her schooling regardless of the outcome. Often times if a woman wants money badly enough, or she is enraged by a man, she need only wait for the right time and victim to strike, knowing that she will receive all of the sympathy and protection from the limelight. Even if she loses the court case, if she has chosen a wealthy enough man, she can be assured of a large payday. Removing this cover from media scrutiny, removes the advantage from any future false rape allegation.

Cons to removing shield:

1) As much as I can quote evidence and logical theories, the facts are some people do not act logically. A woman who has just been raped may not be thinking very clearly. She may so scared of exposure as to never file a complaint. This is indeed a terrible situation, remedied only by the comforting nature of shield laws.

2) Predators know that there are plenty of women who fit reason #1. Therefore, all they have to do is find a shy woman and then take their chances. The shield is in many ways a viable
deterrent.

3) Finally high profiled men (politicians, celebrities, etc.) are in a better position to prey upon women from reasoning #1. If they think that chances are even slightly higher that someone will file charges because of a rape shield, they are less likely to commit rape.

In conclusion logic, fairness, and the law dictate the removal of shield laws in high profile cases. However, the arguments against are valid. However, since we live in a country governed by the rule of law, illogical actions and emotions are best left out of the equation. We see their negative effects in many other areas of life already.