You don't have to prove you're innocent but your accusers have to prove you are guilty. Likewise if a girl can't prove the accused to be guilty that doesn't mean he is definitely innocent (although he is assumed innocent in the sight of the law) or that she is guilty of setting him up. All it defintely means is that she couldn't prove it.(Original post by Gjaykay)
Fairs fair. Guys get put on it even if they were innocent and couldn't prove it. If a girl can't prove it, she should go on it as well.
So your idea wouldn't work or be fair in practice.
If, however, it can be proved that she has deliberately mislead the court then she can be punished for that.
You're right when you say that men are often assumed (in the public eye/the media) to be guilty. One way around this would be to keep the identity of the defendent secret until the outcome of the case. I think thta would be fair.
What makes you memorable?