One of the core tenets of our modern judiciary system, something that is engraved in the constitution of most countries, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and many other such documents, is that people accused of a crime ought to be considered innocent by default, until it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they are indeed guilty.
The fundamental idea behind this is that convicting an innocent person is considered a greater injustice than letting a guilty person go unpunished. It is better to play it safe, to err on the safe side, and let an accused to go free if there is any doubt that they are guilty. It's better to have a thousand criminals go free than a single innocent person to be punished. Punishing the innocent is by far the greater injustice in this situation. It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, and counter all the arguments of the defense, than the other way around.
Of course this doesn't always go right, and sometimes innocent people do end up in jail. However, the basic principle of our judiciary system tries to avoid this as much as possible, and always err on the safe side.
Modern progressive feminist social justice pretty much wants to reverse this in case of rape accusations. By large the very accusation is the proof that they need. They don't need anything else. If a woman claims to have been raped, then she was raped. (In fact, this can sometimes go so far that even in cases where the woman directly admits that she lied, some social justice warriors still keep believing that she was in fact raped. They will believe the woman when she makes the claim, but disbelieve her when she recants and admits that she lied.)
If a woman accuses a man of rape, then social justice warriors will automatically and vehemently assume his guilt by default, without question and without investigation. (In fact, they consider any kind of investigation to be offensive. In their minds it's completely out of the question that a woman could lie about this.) If it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the man is innocent and could not have possibly raped the woman, if the woman keeps insisting on his guilt, the social justice warriors will keep believing her, disregarding the evidence. If the woman says nothing, and the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore, then the social justice warriors will shift gears and say that probably somebody else raped her; she's just confused about what happened, but a rape definitively happened. If she says she was raped, then she was raped. That's exactly as much of a fact as gravity.
Social justice warriors do not need nor want any kind of proof or evidence of this. They will immediately and automatically assume guilt, and start harassing the accused. They have already judged him guilty.
Even if, and that's a big if, it so happens that it becomes too clear that no rape actually happened to deny it, how do social justice warriors respond to this? Do they apologize about their harassment? Do they apologize about jumping to conclusions and de facto convicting an innocent man? Of course not. They will make up excuses and rationalizations. They will belittle and diminish the importance of the damage that was done to the man, and will largely ignore him and what he suffered. It's not important to them. The end justifies the means.
It seems to be pretty much literally so that to a social justice warrior it's better for a thousand innocent men to be punished than for a single guilty man going unpunished. To them, false rape accusations are so exceedingly rare that the few instances where it happens do not matter. So what if the life of some innocent man is destroyed by this? In the grand scheme of things that's minuscule compared to the "rape epidemic" that's happening. The life of one innocent man is not important. It's an acceptable sacrifice.
Needless to say, this kind of thinking is absolutely abhorrent in the light of the core principles of our judiciary system.