[sadris]

And how many innocent people were convicted based on false positives?

How many guilty people were convicted based on true positives?

[Jill_the_Pill]

These are not comparable. The first must be zero, and the second should be "as many as possible while keeping the first at zero."

[sadris]

It must be zero? What if that resulted in 50% of murderers getting away?

[ericns]

What happened to "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." As expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Seems you're willing to punish an innocent man and a guilty man just to make sure a committed crime is followed up with a conviction.

Why have such a low bar in 2019?

[Jill_the_Pill]

Innocent people are killed by the same murderers in both scenarios. In yours, they are also sometimes killed or imprisoned by the state and are therefore at more total risk.

[UncleEntity]

Then the justice system is relying on faulty technology.

[sodosopa]

The justice system relies on human memory all the time. That’s the most unreliable thing we currently use.

[DrGrX]

Trying to eliminate false positives at the expense of letting criminals go free is a staple of western criminal law dating back to 1760s. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

[RHSeeger]

Convicted isn't the right metric. Accusing someone of some crimes (generally anything sexually related or child related) is enough to ruin their life.