The reason that universities have come to be prosecutors of sexual crimes is that they aren't burdened with the same burden of proof of the state and certain in

The reason that universities have come to be prosecutors of sexual crimes is that they aren't burdened with the same burden of proof of the state and certain interest groups want it that way. Many non-violent, sexual crimes do not yield physical evidence that anything beyond a consensual sexual encounter occurred so it becomes a he-said-she-said (or he-he, she-she, etc) issue in which the criminal justice system cannot, in theory, hold the accused criminally liable. Universities can basically do whatever they want and the US Dept. of Education even suggested that universities apply a "preponderance of evidence" standard for internally prosecuting sexual crimes. This means that the university can suspend/expel/discipline one for just 51% or greater likelihood that you are guilty. Even something as banal as the victim having 3 friends testify and the accused only having two would technically satisfy this all else being equal. Now, in fairness, crimes do occur without physical evidence and women's groups aren't wrong to demand some form of justice for those crimes. However, these groups tend to be far more influential than anyone defending the accused ("hey, alleged non-violent rapists are people too!" just isn't a catchy soundbite) and have twisted this process into something resembling witch hunts more than modern justice. just my $0.02