You know that "innocent until proven guilty" thing. It is just a principle. In reality, it doesn't usually quite pan out that way. 
Salon has an article by Jody Jenkins describing the state bureaucracy rumbling on it's accusatory, never-apologise mode.
I think that if the government had to pay the victims of false allegations, we'd see a far better hit rate amongst the police and the various bureaucratic enterprises.
What you'd do is simple - if the offence has a monetary tariff, you'd pay back, say, a third of it to the falsely accused victim. And you'd up that to two-thirds plus costs if it gets to court.
If it's an imprisonable offence, pay the people about £500 for each year on the maximum tariff (and cap 'life' at 25 years for the purpose of compensation) - and reduce that to £250 if it doesn't get to court.
That way if you are accused of, say, murder, you'd get £6,250. And if it goes to court and you are found innocent, you'd get £12,500.
It's far too easy for the government to launch criminal investigations against people - and there's no motivation for them to get it right. It seems that more stringent punishment is necessary for things like police and government corruption, bribe-taking, evidence planting and - oh, shooting innocent people on Tube trains.
The scales of justice are heavily weighted on the side of the government. And what's really galling about that is that we all end up funding this incompetent machine.
Be sure to read the Jenkins article the whole way through. If it doesn't make you angry, you need to check and make sure you've got a pulse.
