You said — “You just don’t understand - putting the occasional (or maybe not so occasionally) innocent person in jail is just the price we pay to have law and order. And just because new evidence, or evidence of proecutorial/police misconduct comes to light, that doesn’t mean they should get a new trial - why, the whole system would grind to a halt.”
Of course, you were mimicking someone else’s statements... I think we all know (or should know) that the “see-saw” of how these things work would be — (1) you make sure you get all the guilty; fallout is some innocent get caught in that web, (2) you protect all the innocent; fallout is some guilty get let go.
Now, it’s a “see-saw” from #1 to #2. As you see-saw more one way, you get more of that fallout that way. If you got back the other way, you get more of that fallout to the other direction.
But, what all should really know is that our legal system is supposed to be designed to *primarily* prevent the innocent from getting swept up in the hunt, conviction and jailing of the guilty — and not the other way around (i.e., “getting all the crooks”).
So, anyone who seeks to *absolutely insure* that we “get all the crooks” is — inevitably — going to be working against the protections of the innocent, and therefore *subverting* our system...
Regards,
Star Traveler
I think a famous man once said something to that effect. It has been long forgotten.
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” William Blackstone.