Comment by applepple
5 years ago
>> How does anyone know they got away with a crime if their cases never went to trial?
Based on probability, you can safely assume that some percentage of them were guilty. That is more correct than assuming that they were all innocent. But to presume innocence simply on the basis that they were not convicted is itself part of the problem wereby the procedure and the wording takes precedence over the intent.
In reality, there is no certainty; some guilty people will be acquitted and some innocent people will be charged. To put too much weight on the words 'guilty' or 'innocent' is to ignore this reality.
> But to presume innocence simply on the basis that they were not convicted is itself part of the problem wereby the procedure and the wording takes precedence over the intent.
Unless the intent is "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."
You seem to have several misunderstandings about the intent of US law in this thread.
The intent of US law is specifically to allow many guilty people to be freed due to procedural errors, and so the fact that this happens is not taking "precedence over the intent".
Also, in the US, no one is ever found "innocent" in court. They are found either guilty or not guilty.