Debate: After Bill Roache's arrest, should people charged with sex crimes be anonymous until proven guilty?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
What's going on?
The Coronation Street actor Bill Roache has been charged over two historic rape allegations against an underage girl who was 15 at the time of the alleged incidents.
Lancashire Police said the offences were alleged to have been committed in the Haslingden area of the county between April and July 1967.
The case has been reported widely across the media, but should Mr Roache's name have been withheld until the court gives a verdict?
Case for: Ruined
Innocent until proven guilty: that's difficult for the public to stick to when it comes to accusations of sex crimes. Just seeing someone's picture in the paper near the word 'rapist' is enough to turn the stomach, and the impression lingers. By the time the case has been heard, the accusations levelled, even an innocent verdict can do little to expunge the stain on a defendant's reputation.
Case against:
If a suspect is not named, other victims may never come forward. Savile's naming brought forward dozens more allegations. Moreover, why should rape cases be treated differently in court to those of murder and terrorism? All that granting anonymity to the accused would do is shroud justice for sex crime victims in secrecy; and given the appallingly low conviction rate for rape (just 6.5%) that would further stymie attempts to improve legal support for victims.