Is there always Fire where there's Smoke ?

I'll confess that this has been on mind a little lately, and yet I've only just decided to write it up.  It's a very sensitive subject and involves the "Me too" movement and the numerous victims that have begun ever more frequently it seems, to speak up about being preyed upon by sexually predatory behaviour.  

These acts been almost universally perpetrated by men, and there is lots and lots in the news and  popular opinion outlets about this, from the way business people and famous types have been removed from their functions, to the way that politicians seem to be able to apologize (or not) and escape unscathed (Roy Moore, Donald Trump, Al Franken).  But I'd like to raise a few underlying assumptions being made that I think don't hold up, and more pointedly are being ignored because a greater purpose is being served.

The first and obvious element of the situation is that elsewhere in society we hold a tenant to be true that says innocent until proven guilty.  Now - I'm not suggesting that this invalidates the veracity of the claims made, but I think we should acknowledge that these are claims made, not convictions.  All too easily in these times of pervasive media are witch hunts borne from simply repeating the same accusations until they are accepted as fact.  It is worth overtly admitting that half the story here is the lack of convictions that took place when claims were made in the past, and the victims' characters were attacked and discredited instead. Fair process never took place, (and doesn't still) and so it's only through populist outrage that the Harvey Weinsteins of the world have been karmically dealt with. But that result doesn't justify abandoning the principle of innocence first.  That isn't being said loudly, and it needs to be.

The second assumption I've heard a few times is "Why would the victim lie about this?" and while I'll admit to hearing that from the advantageous position of being a white male, I can't help but imagine a whole bunch of possible reasons why someone would lie to discredit and or hurt another.  I'm sure you can imagine these too.  Of course that doesn't mean everyone making an accusation is lying, but this ties directly back to the idea above.  We are too often dealing with a 1:1 situation where its he said/she said, and the truth isn't clear.  Corroboration by another victim or observer seems to swing opinion into predator guilt, but that isn't fool-proof.  

A different requirement for accusation and defence ought to be in place here, one that reflects the extremely personal nature of the predatory behaviours and takes into account societal norms (This is just how things were back then) much the same way drinking and driving rules and opinions have evolved over time. Half the issue we face on this today is that there isn't a defined line of behaviour, that if crossed constitutes sexual predation, or predation of other types. We are leaving this up to individual subjective judgements and that's confusing, as my standards vary from yours and so on.

It goes without saying that many people in power, abuse power and those less powerful around them.  Men as predators isn't new, and the current round of house-cleaning won't end this type of aggressive, abusive, and repulsive way of interacting.  If the current spotlight results in clarity on what is acceptable, all the better; but if it only remains a populist knee-jerk reaction against the worst (famous) offenders, than it will be an opportunity lost to move us all forward.