With many people accused of sex charges recently being acquitted, is it not time to grant those accused of sex charges anonymity until proven guilty? In English law a person is innocent until tried and found guilty but the press coverage of many recent trials makes a nonsense of this. What is worst, mud sticks. Even if found not-guilty the harm to reputation as a result of the early sensationalist press and TV coverage is extreme. This coverage is usually sensationalist in nature. If found guilty the accused will usually have to serve time in prison i.e. they have to pay back to society.
As an example, Ralph Harris is already being judged guilty even though
his trial has only just started. If he is acquitted, the bad press will
still be there to haunt him. This serves no good. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27340134 .
Personally, I think both sides in sex trials should be granted anonymity. To do otherwise is grossly unfair on those accused and then often found not guilty. A non-guilty verdict should leave the accused able to walk free with head held high, not to be forever in fear of the press baying for yet more blood. When the accused is guilty the sentence is the punishment.
I am all for justice, but let us have justice for all. To judge a person guilty before a trial has ended and all the evidence has been heard is totally wrong.