Yes, it happens in the United States.

Especially when academia is involved:

The accused student is judged not by a jury of his peers but instead by a three-person panel consisting of two administrators and one student “chosen from a specially trained pool of panelists.” Columbia doesn’t reveal what this special training entails, but based on the Stanford experience, in which the special training consisted of provisions such as the suggestion that an accused student presenting his case logically was a sign of guilt, the provision (which is absent in other Columbia disciplinary processes) doesn’t inspire confidence. And the accused student can be branded a rapist based on a 2-1 vote, with the two-person majority reaching its decision on a preponderance-of-evidence (50.01 percent) threshold.

And get this:

Actual innocence, according to this provision of the school’s new policy, can still result in a form of punishment. Columbia joins Swarthmore in this Orwellian outcome.

Lovely to know that this is happening in the United States.

Fortunately, the people who are doing this don’t realize that they are ultimately raising a generation of rebels.

Give them time.