Protecting the privacy of sexual predators and other criminals is a step too far

The attempt by an Alberta judge to provide anonymity to a man convicted of internet luring is, ironically, having the opposite effect.

It was a rather unremarkable case: a 53-year-old man in Alberta was sentenced in October to 15 months in prison for exchanging sexual text messages with a then-11-year-old victim. Unfortunately, that's not an altogether unusual story.

What is unusual, however, is that Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Justice Brian Burrows, who rendered the decision, opted to use the initials of the accused instead of his full name. Burrows wrote that he made the decision based on concerns about "the recent news of vigilante reactions to such allegations."

But the attempt to shield the accused from undue attention only garnered him more, and since there was no official publication ban in place, the public has since learned his name: Kenneth Blake Rode.

It's understandable what Burrows was trying to do: the likes of Kenneth Rode and the kinds of crimes men like him commit are red meat to online trolls. But attempting to protect his identity was the wrong call, and not simply because all of Canada now knows Rode's name.

Will others demand anonymity?

Courts routinely protect the privacy of children and victims of sexual assault. This is done for a number of reasons, not least of which is to encourage victims to come forward. However, protecting the identity of convicted offenders should only happen when doing otherwise might reveal the names of his or her victims, or else, subject them to further harm. It is unlikely that that would have happened in this case.

Judges have significant latitude and independence in the work that they do. But their decisions often set new precedents, which could very well be an unintended consequence of the decision here. Indeed, will those convicted of similar offences coming before Burrows expect the same protection? What will he, or other judges, do when faced with this argument again? How do we determine which sexual offenders deserve privacy and which ones do not?

• Fearing vigilantes, judge protects privacy of Alberta sex offender
• Creep Catcher vigilantes under fire over death of mentally ill woman

The public vilification that often comes with being convicted of a crime is undoubtedly an additional punishment, but that's not up to a criminal court to rectify. The court's role is to zealously protect the rights of the accused and to ensure that those sent to prison are found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." Attempting to protect the privacy of those convicted of crimes is a step too far, especially considering that many Canadians already see our justice system as one that protects criminals at the expense of their victims.

It is the role of law enforcement to investigate vigilantism when there is some evidence it might occur, but the court should not be granting anonymity based on a remote possibility.- John Muise

As for the alleged vigilante backdrop: it is the role of law enforcement to investigate vigilantism when there is some evidence it might occur, but the court should not be granting anonymity based on a remote possibility. To be sure, vigilantism is a real problem, but the police's attention should be on denouncing and, where applicable, shutting down their activity. Judges taking it upon themselves to try to hide the identities of sexual predators is the wrong approach.

Our justice system is founded on an open court system whereby Canadians have the right to know who has committed serious crimes. That is the price you pay for breaking the law. Fairly or unfairly, many Canadians are questioning their faith in the administration of the criminal justice system. Protecting the identity of a convicted offender doesn't help.

This column is part of CBC's new Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.