The exact poll questions are sort of hard to delineate. I guess my concern is... we've seen an awful lot of this: "On condition of anonymity", attached to all kinds of wild accusations.
In most cases, if there was nothing to the accusation, the accusers simply drift back into the nothingness from which they came, with no real consequence to their accusation being false.

Should the accused, (all accused) have the right to face their accuser? Should all accusations carry consequences if they don't appear to be true?

In this country a rapist has the right to face his accuser, but it seems that lately, the higher up political players, don't seem to have that right.



Forget for a second which "side" you're on in the political frays, and answer as if YOU are the accused. Would YOU demand the right of facing your accuser?



I worry that this "on condition of anonymity" thing is starting to get out of hand. I understand why in some situations, remaining anonymous, might be considered... healthier. But I also see how "on condition of anonymity", could be severely abused if allowed with no consequences attached for "accusing with no proof".

no we should toss out the entire foundation of known historical law dating back to at least roman times, since Apostles 25:16 quoted Porcius Festus as saying "I told them it was not the Roman custom to hand a man over before he has an opportunity to face his accusers and defend himself against their charges."

Well, I mean there should be some allowances, if you're accusing a Clinton... but other than that... ?

And all cases of criminal charges, yes. Not in all cases of accusation outside of a courtroom though.

Agree, unless there is enough proof that it is not needed and there may be trauma involved.

donald 'i was told / i was given that information' trump and his cult wanting to repeal protections for whistleblowers, in order to intensify their smear campaign against someone reporting what the orange draft dodger admitted on national tv, is just disgusting...

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/01/766176669/legal-experts-say-the-right-to-confront-accusers-does-not-apply-to-impeachment

Ah, I didn't know conversations on talk shows were considered... law.

Can you give some examples where this has played out?

"Witness protection" + Public persons are much less -if not- subject to privacy protection: the accusation is involving the person + entire financial or /and political groups.

I guess. When you are innocent you can wait for the end of procedure anyway. Thanks you.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Oct 13 2019 02:37am

When it comes to the court of law, you should have that right.