So you don't care about the family of the accused? Remember there are always two groups in these things and both sides deserve to be treated with respect and decency. Their family would have been completely innocent and will get targeted and persecuted by societies divs for the 'sins of their father/mother/brother/sister'.
Personally I see the prosecutions we have seen wrt historic cases as being a waste of time and money and rapidly lose their news value and is only organisations and society self-flagellating to make it feel better about itself. What on earth comes of prosecuting people in their 70s or 80s or 90s for things they did 20+ years ago? Then there are those that are unfounded, which destroy the lives of those accused. Look at people like Tony Blackburn because he didn't say anything, was stripped of his position by the BBC and Paul Gambaccini a few unfounded accusations which ruined his life and who had his friends pursued and questioned by the plod looking to get a prosecution. If the system in this country was that no one was named until found guilty and in a non-guilty verdict the accuser named, it would be much better. But no, as soon as the police start sniffing around, the media find out and the police can't wait to spill the beans, along the lines of we have had reported unsubstantiated accusation, nothing absolutely concrete and proved beyond doubt, but we are prepared to see them ruined on the back of this. They should stick to standing around with speed cameras.
I wonder why people come out after living with it for years, what purpose does it serve to say things decades later, when the accused may well be dead or mentally incapable. This is why I feel we should have a statute of limitations of maximum 10 years. That way things are relatively fresh in the minds of people, not 20+ years previous when memories are blurred and open to suggestion.