I think the standard should be somewhere between KGK's take and those objecting to it.
For most cases, there will be some evidence. Physical evidence, testimonial evidence, something. That's not going to be the case after 35 years, obviously, and if it's impossible to examine evidence because an accuser kept quiet for three and a half decades, maybe the issue should be considered waived. Waiting 35 years does a disservice to all involved, because it makes it absolutely impossible for the accused to defend himself with competent evidence.
But... there will be cases where an assault is reported in a timely manner, and physical evidence is inconclusive. Then, it comes down to credibility, which has some concerns. "He said / she said" cases will definitely result in some guilty people going free, but it will also lead to innocent ones having their lives ruined. A lot of people pay lip service to the idea of "I'd rather have 1000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be imprisoned". If you believe that, credibility alone should never be a deciding factor there. People lie in court every single day. In some cases, juries or judges pick the person who seems most poised, using that as a substitute for truthfulness. It's not. Many people are very skilled liars.
And, people lie to their advantage in court constantly. We lawyers -- most of whom are Democrats, btw -- have talked about this extensively in light of the Kavanaugh allegations. Talking heads, sociologists, me-tooers, etc. suggest that people who report sexual crimes almost never lie. That's nonsense. Come to court some day, and you'll see tons of liars. Some lie to keep themselves out of trouble. Some lie to get a leg up in a divorce, or to get custody of their kids. It's so prevalent that here in Maine, the factors the Court has to consider in making a custodial placement is whether the person seeking custody has made false allegations to gain a legal advantage.
If you accept that: 1) all people are innocent until proven guilty; and 2) no accusers are automatically more credible because of their gender or their claimed victimhood, it would help get to the bottom of this.
And, in terms of due process, I object to a lot of the claims made in here. 1) No, the fact that there is a second allegation against somebody doesn't inherently add credibility to both the subsequent and former accusation. Every accusation needs independent proof. 2) We don't "have" to pick one side or the other; it's fair to say "we can never know". 3) Painting people guilty by association is wrong. 4) It's absolutely not accurate to say that 2% - 10% of accusations are false. That percentage is *proven* false. Around 49% are *proven* true. There's another 40% - 50% of accusations that are not proven either way. To argue that none of those fall into the "false" category defies reason.
So, I guess where I come down is the system our legal system recommends: accusers make complaints, law enforcement investigates. If there's probable cause, the case can go to a judge or a jury. At that point, the burden needs to be on the government (or in civil proceedings, the accuser) to PROVE guilt. Cases that hinge solely on credibility should be heard, but jurors and judges should be skeptical of finding guilt in those cases, and should check their biases before rendering any sort of verdict.