When it comes to being ripped off by an employer, or by a landlord, it is very, very easy to determine the legitimacy of a claim using empirical evidence. That's why there is never a controversy about potential false accusations regarding rent and lost wages. If the accused aren't guilty of what they're being accused of. all they have to do is produce the relevant documentation, and the case is pretty much wrapped up. Also in the grand scheme of things, the public don't give as much of a fuck about shady employers or landlords as they do about perverts and rapists. And if someone does get ripped off, the usual sentiment is "Hope you've learned your lesson. Here's what you should do in the future to protect yourself from these scumbags", which ironically enough is a form of victim blaming.

The same can't be said for sexual assault. The ones being accused literally has no defense whatsoever that can definitively prove or disprove a sexual assault allegation unless they have an alibi, and that only works if they're being accused of a single incident rather than a pattern of behaviour. This is especially true for sexual assault cases that happened a long time before the victim came forward. That's why it's always wrapped up in controversy until a court has a chance to apply due process to the case, and even then you still have plenty of people who refuses to accept the verdict. When you take that into consideration, and the fact that a sexual assault allegation is life/career ending even before any due process can take place, why would it surprise to anyone that people should be reminded that false accusations are a thing, and to not jump to any conclusions until due process can take place?

Quoting /u/Unintentionallysorry:

Because the system is not out to create an additional victim, and neither should we.