A company doesn't need to win a court case to fire someone. You're not entitled to a job. This is America.
No one is locking these people up without a trial. However, being shunned by most of society does not require a court case.
I agree, as far as we know this is what has been happening. An exception being Roy Moore, as far as I know he has stridently denied the accusations made against him.
I do think GP has identified a slippery slope. Not everyone is honorable and some people will start to get the idea that they can take down a boss they don't like by simply leveling a sexual assault charge. If in today's climate there is a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, or even an attitude "easier to fire him than deal with an investigation" then pray you're never on the wrong side of that scenario.
It's widely reported that, for example, the Washington Post ran an in-depth investigation into one accuser of Roy Moore, and found out she was lying to discredit their reporting. They did this due diligence even after every sane person was already convinced that Roy Moore was a creep. So, presumably, they would have had more reason to believe her than anyone accusing someone previously not connected to such allegations.
Hell, and there a ton of craziness that goes on in the dating scene. If I was still dating, I'd record with my phone, to prove "No, (s)he did consent. Here's the proof." The opposite of this, is fighting off a potential rape allegation. That scares the living fuck out of me, since a buddy had that happen.
But maybe there's a case for a device that records, in a sealed storage. Think of it as insurance on claims of wrongdoing.
I've also been sexually harassed by a manager (I'm a guy, manager was a woman). Worked at a subway. She grabbed my ass deep enough she fondled my testicles. Turns out the district manager came in the back door. Fired her on the spot. Makes me a weird exception, in that it was female doing to male subordinate, and it was solved.
Someone makes a claim, another person loses their job. It may be true, or not. No recourse. Start the spiral of poverty, destitution, and homelessness. And they had better hope they get off that spiral before too long.
> However, being shunned by most of society does not require a court case.
It IS a problem when being "shunned by society" entails in living under a bridge or in a tent city.
In the US, you'd have to prove that they are lying which is obviously impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
It's hard to think of a way to have a situation where both of: Women are safe from harassment in private and Men are safe from the possibility of being destroyed by three women who don't like them
Are true
It doesn't sound like you understand US law very well.
Proving that someone is lying is not impossible.
Holding an entity liable for defamation is also not impossible accordingly. See: the recent Virginia case, which Rolling Stone magazine lost by jury verdict. [1]
You can sue someone in the US for defamation at any time you like. During the process, you can show the lack of evidence on the other side, and you can show the evidence to support your case. In a culture that strongly favors free speech, there should be a high burden to criminalization of opinion.
If someone claims you sexually assaulted them on June 24th at 8pm, at Some Restaurant - and you can demonstrate you were never there, you're very likely to win that in court. In the US, the consequences of losing such a defamation case, are typically very punishing, which helps to limit any kind of actual free-for-all of false accusations.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/business/media/rolling-st...
In most cases, at least when considering the higher-profile ones of the last few weeks, stories have been about multiple occurrences. The reporting typically identifies a pattern of behavior from multiple sources who were confirmed to have told friends, family, or colleagues at the time of the incident.
If a single, unverifiable account was thought to be sufficient, I'd be with you. But when you have multiple occurrences and patterns, you can argue that it's clear that the person is creating a toxic work environment and can be dealt with more swiftly than the legal process.
My understanding (based, I admit, on a brief reading of the BBC's report, so maybe there's lots more I haven't seen) of the MPR/Garrison Keillor case seems like an example of that.