Currently there is a discussion in gender politics that collateral damages such as innocent men/women being jailed for false accusations do occur, however they are an opportunity to discuss the topic of which the person was accused of.

Is this acceptable?

EDIT:

The debate so far has been excellent and many great opinions and positions have come out. This discussion has been around for over two decades, which can be attributed to a ground breaking Time article discussing justice reform in regards to sexual assault, and was revisited recently in academic debate. One of the most contested quotes in gender studies, and misquoted, here is the complete quote (not the summary originally presented);

"Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of “rape.” She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. “To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don’t care a hoot about him.” Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. “They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.” Time, June 3, 1991 p. 52