Civil court you have to prove your innocence as opposed the having to prove the crime.
But what could you sue someone for in civil court with regard to rape?
I would guess the cost of counseling, any medical costs associated with the rape, plus pain and suffering.
When someone goes a-rapin', torts abound. There are plenty of potential causes of action (battery, intentional infliction of emotion distress, trespass to persons, etc.). The burden of proof in civil actions is almost always preponderance of the evidence (meaning more likely than not, i.e. >50% likelihood). The plaintiff should have the right to request a jury trial, and a sympathetic jury would have little problem awarding substantial monetary damages for pain and suffering, anticipated cost of therapy, etc. Unfortunately, civil actions for rape tend to lead to victim blaming. If you end up with a shitty jury, the end result could be huge legal bills, embarrassment and ultimately no relief. In cases like this, the compensatory mechanisms of civil courts are a poor substitute for the functions of criminal law. Civil remedies are designed to make the victim whole (usually $) without casting moral blame on the other party. Criminal convictions on the other hand reflect the judgment of society about the perpetrator's moral blameworthiness. While I think it is unfair, a woman who seeks monetary damages from an alleged rapist will be subjected to the suspicions of the wider community. For those reasons, many women choose not to pursue civil remedies. In fact, in cases where there are concurrent civil and criminal suits, there is some evidence that the existence of a pending civil action results in prejudice against the victim in the pending criminal proceeding.
