Since the Jimmy Savile situation opened the floodgates, we're going through a phase where child abusers are being caught on a regular basis.
These are historic examples which in most cases happened several years ago.
There have been the (mainly Catholic) priests who abused children in their care and also numerous celebrities. The common feature here is the abuse of power. It's not too dissimilar to the war crimes scenario where officers and soldiers who used their power to rape and torture are later held to account for their crimes against humanity.
There has been much discussion about these cases but my own interest is in other people's opinions on the matter.
I have found in the case of elderly celebrities being accused of abuse decades earlier, that many take the view that one should 'let sleeping dogs lie'. Frequently female, thus often demonstrating a lack of sisterhood, they argue that the celebrity is too old and infirm to be hounded with abuse claims. A further suggestion that the claims may be spurious come in the form of 'why did they wait until now to come out of the woodwork?'
If Savile had lived, I cannot imagine many people would have said 'let bygones be bygones'. If Hitler had escaped and been caught thirty years later would anyone have let him off because of his age?
I would imagine that being abused is not something you want aired in public and to do so is a brave thing. We have seen celebrities vehemently protest their innocence and then later confess their crimes. They need to be named when accused so that others who may have been abused by them might come forward. Until they are found guilty, they are innocent in my eyes but if guilty they deserve the full weight of the law.
Equally, anyone found guilty of making false claims of abuse should be dealt with just as firmly.