Facilitating the security of the people involved, in general, and the plaintiffs, in particular, is one of the primary concerns in any course proceedings. Therefore, when addressing the issue of two adolescents allegedly having been molested by an adult, one must consider whether calling the victims to testify would be a sensible step to take. The scenario under analysis featuring two adolescents, Fred and Jake, having to testify in front of the court against their offender, can be viewed as a graphic representation of the problem of disclosing the private information of the victims and, therefore, making them extremely vulnerable to the outside factors. Since the possibility of Jack and Fred, the victims of Julia, a sex offender, of receiving another psychological trauma after their story being rendered by the media is very high, it is crucial that they should be prevented from testifying in court. Instead, the available evidence should be used as the basis for passing the verdict and considering whether the defendant is guilty of a sex offense (Johnson par. 6).
Although one might consider the process of introducing the information that the victims can provide to the case, one must bear in mind that the court experience, as well as the further exposure to the press, may turn out to be traumatizing to them. The reasons for preventing the exposure of the victims to the court proceeding and the following attention of the press stems from the need to provide them with the integrity and security that they are eligible to (Cornell University Law School par. 2).
Even though a range of factors point to the fact that the defendant is likely to be guilty, one must give credit to the strategy of defense chosen by the latter. The focus on the positive actions of the defendant and her contribution to the wellbeing of the community, particularly, the participation in the charity event, may serve as the extenuating circumstances and, therefore, shape the jury’s opinion of Julia. There is a very high possibility that both victims will be called to testify by the prosecutor. In addition, the likelihood of the victims being questioned by the attorney is very high as well (“A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations” 3).
It could also be argued that placing Fred and Jack in the Victim Protection Program (“Safety Denied: Victim and Witness Protection in Sexual Violence Cases” 3) could be viewed as a temporary solution to the press-related issue. Indeed, by definition, the above measure is supposed to create an environment, in which the victims will be shielded from the unnecessary attention of the media. Nonetheless, the program will not allow monitoring the actions of the media representatives so that the tiniest possibilities of exposure could be prevented (“Victims and the Media” par. 7).
With the above information in mind, it is strongly suggested that the victims should not be called to testify since the experience may turn out to be far too traumatizing for them. While making sure that the criminal should receive the punishment that she deserves is crucial, it is imperative to prevent causing any further harm to victims. Seeing that overexposure to the media may trigger aggravation of the stress that the plaintiffs already are under, it is undesirable that they should be subjected to any additional legal procedures. Thus, it is advised that adolescents should be allowed to refrain from giving evidence in court.
Works Cited
A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations 2013, PDF file. Web.
Cornell University Law School n. d. First Amendment. Web.
Johnson, Chandra. “The Problem with the Media’s Coverage of Sexual Assault.” National Deseret News 2015. Web.
Safety Denied: Victim and Witness Protection In Sexual Violence Cases 2011, PDF file. Web.
Victims and the Media 2015. Web.