In common use in other countries, this device is a one-way tinted glass so that suspects cannot see their accusers in situations where eye contact can be an unnerving experience for victims. The inventors of the glass had one thing in mind, and that was that coming face to face with suspects -some of them charged with heinous crimes - could put victims or witnesses in more danger. Society had learnt from ample experience, as many had been followed with deadly effect in order that the evidence against the alleged felon was eliminated. Many criminals - hardened recidivists, some of them – thought nothing of zapping witnesses, or arranging for such a ghastly purpose, in order to secure their underserved freedom. This is secondary victimisation on survivors who have to come face to face with their vicious attackers, in many instances rapists and armed robbers.
Other than the real and present prospect of physical harm and death, bringing a victim of serious crimes into close proximity with the perpetrator has great potential to trigger complicated emotions that can be difficult to reverse. But what is worse is that altogether the absence of such a partition has the deleterious effect on justice by discouraging members of the public from coming forward as witnesses. At any rate, who wants to be eyeball to eyeball with the hardboiled face of an outlaw? An added advantage of the identification parade suite is that the police can study the demeanour of the suspect safely behind the tinted glass. Very clearly then, the absence of this device can only compromise evidence that must be presented before the courts without fear or favour.
