Yep there is the possible advantage of other crimes coming to light but I suppose that has to be weighed against the rights of the innocent.
Ben, I guess there are any number of cases where the publicity has led to others coming forward that makes conviction more of a certainty, given the difficulty of securing convictions in a one-on-one he said, she said kind of case.
However, the naming of men accused is I think a hangover from the days when less than 30% of cases coming to court actually ended in conviction, and the percentage of accusations that actually came to trial was lower still, and naming them was I think a crude way of redressing that situation, what with the no smoke without fire thing. If we can't get you in court, we'll get you in the court of public opinion anyways, and that's how we'll protect other women from you seems to be the idea behind it. These days, conviction rates in cases that come to trial run at something like 50-60%, so I'm not sure it's quite so justifiable. It seems entirely wrong that only one side should enjoy the protection of anonymity.
N x x x