Law: Forced into the Spotlight

(2 of 2)

So how do judges make these decisions? They don't exactly wing it, but they pick and choose among factors that lead to a muck of inconsistency. Plaintiffs have a better chance of proceeding anonymously if they are minors or might face retribution. Anonymity is a long shot if it would limit the defendant in challenging the accuser's claims (How do you attack the credibility of a pseudonym?), or if the plaintiff's name is already known.

Even in cases of rape, anonymity may not help the victim. People often feel they have lost control of their lives after a sexual attack, and identifying themselves publicly can revive a sense of control, says Lynn Parrish of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, which counsels victims. "It allows them to say, 'This is who I am, this happened to me, and I am not going to allow [the attacker] to victimize me again by making me keep this inside,'" she explains.

But the biggest problem with anonymity is how it can damage a defendant. Since ostensible victims need not disclose their names, they may feel less constrained from making bogus accusations. The sergeant accused of attacking Jane Doe has been portrayed in court documents as a sexual thug. Maybe he deserves it. But maybe he did nothing wrong.

We'll probably never know. In the aftermath of Lynch's decision, the parties are talking settlement. Doe will get compensated, while the sergeant will pay with his name. If that makes the judge look mean, then maybe it's the sergeant, not Doe, who should complain.