Who said anything about taking the claims at face value? This is where your reasoning fail is - the only thing you're seemingly considering is "a woman told a story." Since people sometimes lie, then perhaps she is lying. You don't take into account any of this other evidence - namely, that other people are corroborating that she told them about the incident contemporaneously. That we also have the accused on tape saying that he engages in the same behavior. Rather, you insist on concocting a motivation for lying - without any evidence, mind you - and thereby using that to say we shouldn't believe her story.
As has also been pointed out to you many times - the "reasonable doubt" standard exists in one arena, and for one specific purpose. Civil courts, which deal with these types of cases all the time, are perfectly comfortable using a preponderance standard to establish facts and, ultimately, civil liability for one's actions. Liability which often does, in fact, impose large negative consequences on the people or entities found liable. So actually, I don't need to reform the legal system at all - they've gotten it right all along, and realize the absurdity of the burden of proof you're trying to impose.
