We need to remember that "sexual misconduct" is a broad term that encompasses a wide range of behaviors. Although we often use it to cover both crimes (rape, sexual assault or abuse, sexual harassment that meets the legal definition of that term) and other offenses, in most policy documents it refers to actions that don't meet the legal standard of those felonies but are still deeply troubling, undesirable, and potentially traumatic or life-changing, especially in a professional or educational setting.
Relationships between teachers and students or doctors and patients are not necessarily inherently illegal, for example. but most institutions feel--rightly in my opinion--that the power imbalances in such situations make true consent extremely difficult if not impossible and create too much potential for abuse, manipulation, or coercion. So employers and professional bodies ban such relationships and back those bans up with serious and clearly-communicated professional consequences for violating them.
Similarly, the legal definition of sexual harassment is actually quite limited. Making horrible comments of a sexual nature or about a person's body to or about another person, touching another person inappropriately, performatively ogling someone, making unwelcome advances toward someone, pressuring someone to consent to sexual acts: these are not necessarily felonies in and of themselves. Additional legal tests have to be met before a pattern of conduct or its consequences meets the threshold for prosecuting sexual harassment. There are a lot of situations in which, if someone went to the police, they would sympathize but not be able to do anything, because the behavior fell short of the level of criminality that the police exist to investigate and the law to punish. But there are also a lot of situations in which not only are such behaviors unwelcome, but hierarchies or power imbalances make it so hard for the recipients to resist fully and freely that there need to be policies prohibiting such behavior and, again, serious and clearly-communicated professional consequences for violating them.
The same is true of many forms of bullying, emotional abuse, or hazing. They aren't crimes that the police can investigate and a court of law judge and sentence. But they are horrible and need to be prevented, and people who commit them need to be stopped from continuing to do so. When putting the perpetrator in jail isn't an option, there need to be other mechanisms to remove him or her from the victim's environment and prevent access to future victims. That means professional consequences (losing a job or the membership of an organization, losing the credentials or certification needed to hold that type of job) and, often, being placed on a register available to the public or to appropriate parties (e.g. employers) to alert prospective employers of the perpetrator's demonstrated record of misconduct.
Unless we want there to be no consequences for any behavior that falls short of the legal definitions of felony rape or sexual assault/ abuse/harassment, etc., or to have those behaviors dealt with solely through word of mouth, institutions (employers or professional bodies) need to set up their own investigative and disciplinary processes. Hence SafeSport. It may very well be the first port of call for survivors of crimes whose cases need to be passed on to the police. But it can also deal with problems that the police can't, through processes that are intended to create due process (as opposed to mob justice) and protect all participants: survivors from continued abuse, potential victims from victimization, the innocent from rumors and false allegations.
I have no knowledge of how SafeSport actually operates, and I'm not claiming that it's perfect. But something of its kind is a necessity for any profession, especially one that involves intensive interaction between adults and minors, in one-on-one situations, with little oversight from other adults.
