Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

When a provider reports abuse, should the accused abuser be able to know the identity of his or her accuser?

Explain your answer with as much detail as possible. Under law, the health provider is under obligation to report abuse to law enforcement agencies. The police then investigate, obtain sufficient evidence, arrest the abuser, and accuse him or her in a court of law (Hess, 2011). uring case proceedings, the health provider ma! not be re"uired. #f need be, the! appear as witnesses and not accusers. The law enforcement officer or the state in this case is the accuser. The accused abuser does not have to loo$ far to $now who the accuser is. %ost of the time& it is not possible to get the ideal open'and'shut case. Ta$e the classic scenario whereb! %r. (aron marries %iss )eth. The! beget a girl child *ollins. (fter a while, the! divorce. (aron migrates from that countr!. (rrangements are made so that he can spend three wee$s with his daughter once ever! !ear. )oth (aron and )eth agree to this arrangement. (fter a number of !ears, a !oung lad! oroth! approaches social wor$ers in the place where (aron lives and accuses (aron of seriousl! and repeatedl! se+uall! abusing his daughter *laire. oroth! insists on absolute anon!mit!. ,hen this shoc$ing accusation reaches )eth, she decides never to send her daughter awa! again to visit with (aron. (aron swears that he has never abused an!bod! and ta$es )eth to court for den!ing him access to his daughter. -ne of the most important rights e+tended b! the law to (aron is that he has the right to confront witnesses who testif! against him. This right prevents the government from using secret accusers li$e lad! oroth! from denouncing (aron in court. The sub.ect matter of hearsa! cannot be overloo$ed. ,hat the social wor$ers presented to )eth amounts to hearsa! because the! did not directl! witness (aron abusing *laire but heard it from oroth!. ( good legal s!stem should neither allow hearsa! evidence in court nor permit savv! government prosecutors to pla! around with debatable issues arising from how the law treats hearsa!.

Under such circumstances, the learned .udges have no option but as$ for the identit! of the secret accuser oroth! to be revealed. This will then ma$e it possible for (aron to confront oroth!. The court will also be eager to weigh the evidence presented. #t would not be the first time that someone falsel! accuses another and then hides under a veil of anon!mit!. This would amount to gross in.ustice. #f oroth!/s evidence does not hold in court, then the right for (aron to access his daughter *laire should be restored. (aron should sue the false witness oroth! and en.o! the proceeds accruing from the penalt! that oroth! pa!s. #n the real world, things are not as simple. This case is in actual fact an ethical parado+. ue to its nature to mercilessl! stic$ to facts, the law has been compared to a stubborn ass. There are matters that are lawful but not necessaril! ethical. oroth!/s accusation ma$es it impossible for )eth to trust (aron around her daughter. #t has a weight! ps!chological impact. ,ho would forgive )eth if she lets her daughter go onl! once more and then (aron, true to oroth!/s accusation abuses her0 -n the other hand, wh! would the .ustice s!stem den! (aron access to his precious daughter based on circumstantial evidence originating from a faceless accuser who does not want to reveal her identit!0 This is a classic case of an ethical parado+.