While I understand the sentiment of your position, from a legal perspective this is completely false.

The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that something DID happen. The defense is not obligated to prove that their client is innocent. They just need to show that the prosecution doesn't have enough to prove guilt. That's why the judge never announces that the defendant is "innocent" but rather "not guilty".

There are still two things that cause issue for the accused though (and I think this is what you're getting at). For one, court cases often get dragged out for so long, and drag everyone through the mud, and lawyer's fees get so high, that it's often times best just to settle. So they have to pay a monitary value just to be done with it. And second, the court of public opinion often works against the accused. Even if a person is found not guilty, the public which often has access to limited information makes it's own conclusions.

It's a troubled system no doubt. But I would push back that people can just make accusations and have the upper hand.