I don't know if it's realistic.
No, and it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
> What if judges, juries and lawyers worked on cases where the accused and the victim are anonymous.
How is the jury going to evaluate guilt or innocent based on evidence (whether physical evidence or witness testimony) -- including, particularly, evidence relating to the perpetrator, victim, and the details of their interactions that are essential to the question of guilt or innocence of the crime, if the identities, sex, race, etc., of the accused and the victim(s) are obscured from the jury?
What you might plausibly do is remove sentencing from the trial court, and anonymize the bare findings of fact before forwarding them to a separate body that handles sentencing. That might have some utility, though it would still be subject to bias in the trial courts actually in completing the findings of fact used for determining sentence.
What you suggest in your last paragraph is pretty much what I had in mind. Facts would be gathered and then anonymized before being used for sentencing. Instead of "this black guy raped this white woman" they would make their decision based on "this person raped this other".
It's pretty relevant to evaluating whether a particular piece of evidence (whether a video or photograph, a witness description, etc.) implicates the guilt or innocence of the particular person charged with the crime. Which is, after all, the whole job of the jury.
> What you suggest in your last paragraph is pretty much what I had in mind. Facts would be gathered and then anonymized before being used for sentencing.
What I discuss in the last paragraph is something that can only happen after the jury has found the facts in a process in which the jury, judge, and lawyers knew who the victims and accused were.
Especially when we're talking about witness testimony, the jury needs to see the witness to determine whether they believe them.
Because it's part of the facts of the case (imagine for instance if you couldn't mention the color and make of a car that hit you)?
Not to mention how would you hide the race and sex of a defendant from the jury? Not let the defendant into the courtroom? Move everything to written testimony?
> Neither their sex, nor race, nor anything is disclose.
Who decides what is contained by 'anything'? That process will become corrupt and only serve power. I don't think justice will be served by withholding information.