The writer suggests that "the victim is a person in distress" and deserves empathy during the questioning. That is true IF the person is telling the truth... but since one is "innocent until proven guilty", would this writer also expect empathy and  quiet  kindness to be shown to the  suspect? Being charged with rape when one is in fact innocent would also be distressful, but I can't imagine any woman asking that police remember that the accused is also a person in distress and treat him with quiet calm.
Thus we see the automatic bias in this entire piece.  Remember Gomeshi? He lost his job and reputation while three duplicitous women lied to the Press and the courts for months, setting him up for a retribution that they felt he deserved because he had basically refused to keep seeing them. 
If the cops think that one in five cases are unfounded, why is that supposedly a problem? Perhaps they are right? Benefit of doubt should be operable in BOTH directions, no?