The rampant Bay State practice of letting defendants hide their faces in court is raising outrage among legal experts and victims advocates who say the public has a right to see accused criminals.

“Nobody coddles their criminals more than Massachusetts,” said Laurie Meyers, head of Community Voices, a child protection advocacy group. “If you are charged with a crime, you are there to face the music. … From the victims’ advocacy side of it, hiding someone’s identity is another slap in the face of the victim.”

State Rep. Harold P. Naughton Jr., a former prosecutor and co-chairman of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, said the issue “is ripe for exploration.”

“Perhaps we need to create a mechanism by which defense attorneys can request that their client not show their face for a legitimate reason put forward,” Naughton said.

There is no court rule or policy that governs when defendants are allowed to hide their faces. That’s entirely up to a judge, who in Massachusetts allow it to an uncommon degree, legal watchers said.

Recent examples abound, including:

• Joseph Barthel, who was allowed to pull his ?T-shirt over his face at his arraignment on a sexual assault charge yesterday in Charlestown District Court;

• Murder suspect Martin Jiminez, who hid behind a doorway in South Boston District Court last week, while a judge shouted around a corner to ask if he could understand his questions;

• Irish nanny Aisling Brady McCarthy, who stayed behind closed doors while she was arraigned in January on charges in connection with a toddler’s beating death — and who covered her face in an April court appearance;

• Registered sex offender Brian Vines, who in June stood behind a wall in a Brockton courtroom when arraigned on a home invasion charge; and

• Former Newton teacher Daniel Ettlinger, who covered his face with his hands throughout his arraignment in Brighton Municipal Court last year on charges related to possessing child pornography.

Retired Roxbury District Court Judge Edward Redd — working in a courthouse that sees a large number of cases where identification is an issue — said defense lawyers sometimes go too far hiding their clients, but judges should decide that: “You can’t have a general policy against it, you have to take each case as the facts are presented.”

Prosecutors often back the practice because they worry witnesses will confuse their memory with images of assailants on television.

“Bad witness IDs are the single leading cause for wrongful convictions,” said Jake Wark, spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley. “If there is a concern that eyewitness IDs are going to be an issue, and a defense attorney wants his client out of view, we’ll assent to that or even encourage it. If ID is not an issue, we may take no position or oppose it.”

In Barthel’s case, Wark said, state troopers caught him in the act and identification was not an issue. Because he stood in the dock in plain view, the decision to let him cover his face with his T-shirt was up to the judge.

But former Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr. said defense attorneys should have to explain in court why showing a client’s face would prejudice a case: “That is part of being charged with a crime, showing in court and answering your accusers.”