The crusade and strong Western societal taboo/moral panic on this topic clearly massively cloud people’s judgments (e.g. Chat Control in the EU), unfortunately.
I believe its orthogonal to what you refer to as moral panic:
Every day the legal process dragged on, every day this defendant sat in prison, was a day the real perpetrator wasn't recognized, wasn't prevented from harming more victims. Now what you refer to as a moral panic turns out to have interests aligned with the falsely convicted defendant.
Any further harm suffered by victims of the perpetrator should be entitled to sue the police / prosecution, suppose such further harm happened:
as I understood, for a person / entity to be co-liable theoretically requires:
* the person / entity having faulted
* a causal connection between the fault and resulting damages
Please don't push on the basis of what position you consider yourself more or less likely to find yourself in, but push on the basis of what you believe may help prevent false positives and false negatives.
I've seen people argue for lowering burdens of proof for particularly heinous crimes and seemingly unaware they're arguing from a position of rage and need for revenge.
Every day the legal process dragged on, every day this defendant sat in prison, was a day the real perpetrator wasn't recognized, wasn't prevented from harming more victims. Now what you refer to as a moral panic turns out to have interests aligned with the falsely convicted defendant.
Any further harm suffered by victims of the perpetrator should be entitled to sue the police / prosecution, suppose such further harm happened:
as I understood, for a person / entity to be co-liable theoretically requires:
* the person / entity having faulted
* a causal connection between the fault and resulting damages
Please don't push on the basis of what position you consider yourself more or less likely to find yourself in, but push on the basis of what you believe may help prevent false positives and false negatives.