The proposed rule comes as a response to growing concerns that criminals might target so-called "rats" for retribution. But critics like open government advocate Jeff Hunt have called the measure "an unjustified reaction" that "sweeps too broadly" and "goes far beyond what is warranted." (But tell us what you really think, Jeff!)

And in an editorial, The Provo Daily Herald warned that the case could "diminish public trust in the judicial system and potentially lay the groundwork for abuse." The newspaper noted that members of the public, unaware of the details of a plea arrangement, might conclude that prosecutors are going too light on criminals who, in fact, are secret rats. Not to be outdone by Hunt's persuasive prose, the Herald noted that "secret courts are one of the most feared weapons of any dictator." Whoa.

A few years ago, the city of Sandy tried to prevent the names of all of its law enforcement officers from being made public, arguing that police officers could be retaliated against by those they've arrested. That's a red herring, The Salt Lake Tribune successfully argued before the State Records Committee. After all, those who commit offenses don't need to do a public records search to find out which officer brought them to justice.

In this case, the same logic applies. Criminals don't need to file a FOIA to find out the names of the rats. They already know: It's the guy who was charged with the same offenses as you were but walked out of court a free man on the same day you went to prison. And if this rule is approved, criminals will have a new way of finding the rats: They'll be the guys whose plea hearing documents have been sealed.

-- mdl