In the "Keine scheisse, Sherlock" department, and to piggyback on the story below:
Kirby Dick, who wrote and directed The Hunting Ground, told ThinkProgress[,] “The criminal justice system resoundingly resides in favor of the perpetrator.”
Of course, it does Kirby Dick! What part of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by competent evidence" do you not understand? This is the standard that is supposed to prevent innocent men from languishing in prison for a crime they did not commit.
Quite a few years ago, law enforcement understood this concept and would start out by investigating all the facts of a case to determine if the allegations were true, so they could assist prosecutors in meeting this standard. They had to start out by trying to prove that the allegations were true beyond a reasonable doubt. They asked tough questions. They gathered evidence. They reconciled themselves to the premise that if an accused is guilty, then the investigator is his worst enemy, but if he is innocent, then the investigator is his best friend.
But, lately, law enforcement seems to act as if they maintain the attitude that if a man is accused, then law enforcement is his worst enemy regardless of guilt or innocence. When they receive a statement from an alleged victim, then that's really all they need to arrest somebody. If they ask tough questions that a defense attorney surely will ask, then they are called "victim blamers." Instead, the sexual grievance industry demands that law enforcement "Start by Believing." And, believe they do.
"Start by Believing" gives bad cops an excuse to be lazy, and their departments are paid to be lazy. When the number of sexual assaults prosecuted in a jurisdiction increase, then that means they get more grant money from the Violence Against Women Act, which has contributed over $6 billion in grants since it was passed in 1994. So, why fight the system? If a thorough investigation yields less cases, then that means less money, so whatever you do as investigator, don't look for evidence that proves innocence!
And there is a dearth of people who lobby or advocate for the rights of the falsely accused in Congress. The only politician I have even heard speak of the due process rights of the Accused was Marco Rubio in reference to college disciplinary boards, and a state legislator in Georgia.
So, what happens when a government places immense political pressure on prosecutors to prosecute every offense and reduce the "favoritism" shown to the accused in the justice system? You get cases like this one in the UK. You get one of many courts-martial like this one in the military involving Airman Brandon Wright, or this one involving a woman with the initials "B.S." who said she was on top, fellated the convicted while on his back, and enjoyed the sex the night it happened, or this one involving Major Kit Martin. You get cases like this one, where the accused is not cleared by law enforcement, even after DNA excluded him as the victim's rapist, and the victim gets murdered by the actual rapist. These are cases that a high school student could show that the accused is the falsely accused.
So, yes, Kirby Dick, our system of justice is resoundingly in favor of the accused because it is supposed to make law enforcement search for the truth, which on many occasions is that the accuser is lying or mistaken. It strengthens our system by ensuring that prosecutors have the evidence they need to prove the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so they may become the convicted. Quite simply, convictions should be based on evidence, not the prosecutor's rhetoric.
And while I'm at it, Kirby, did you actually read Ariana Klay's Court-martial transcripts before you gave her a starring role as one of your victims in "The Invisible War"? If not, then you are about as lazy at directing "documentaries" as cops are at investigating sexual assault nowadays. Although, you are one heck of an advocate.