Testimony: Are we being hypocritical?

[Ravenshire]

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved."

~Benjamin Franklin

This is true.  The practical application of this, though, is that it will be virtually impossible to charge a man for rape or sexual assault.  Even if semen is found inside a woman's body, he says, "Well, she said yes," and then it's 1:1 hearsay.

There's another case: that of political corruption.  When the powers that be deliberately work to cover up evidence, then what is to be done when the occasional whistle-blower has something to say about the conduct of, say, Trump?

What you say has merit, but I'd far rather reach for the higher goal and fall short than start locking people up based on nothing more than "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act" (the minimum of evidence for treason where no admission of guilt is obtained as established by the constitution).