Part of due process ought to be the proper investigation of any and all allegations by anyone and around any topic. Instead, if it’s an allegation of sexual impropriety, it largely gets disbelieved and the person/woman is supposed to “prove it” while all other allegations of a crime get investigated with no problem. This is not due process, which as you pointed out, isn’t actually what is wanted. It is the maintenance of the status quo.
The other phrase that irritates me is “innocent until proven guilty.” That actually only refers to who has the burden of proof in a trial situation and has no bearing on our right to suspect someone who has behaved in such a way as to warrant that suspicion. Probable cause should lead to an investigation, but too often it doesn’t.
“According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 ). It is not considered evidence of the defendant’s innocence, (empahsis mine) and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.”