although it sucks in the US that your arrest is not scrubbed by default for a not guilty verdict

unless you go through like 100 hoops and wait 3-5 years

I dont know if you know this or not, but outside of the US,... people see the US as a "suing culture"

yeah that one is archaic

that would be a good topic for Will Chamberlain

we see it as suing culture

what wins, freedom of press or freedom due process

I mean given our history, it's obviously the first

Why was he filming them anyway I mean what good could that do after the defendants were public anyway?

OJ, the Duke Lacross Case, Laci Peterson, and other high profile cases

That’s funny @wacka considering how lose our libel and slander laws are compared to the rest of the world.

I'm sure he was filming to bring attention to it

there are also some other BS things, like if its found you were falsely imprisoned, you could still end up having to pay for any fees related with being released from prison. oh yeah, there are fees with that in some states. They also don't usually pay you for their mistake.

"oh yeah, turns out you were falsely imprisoned and had literally everything taken from you.... too bad, we are not paying you back for that

yeah if you dig deep enough, there's plenty of injustice to be found

false convictions overturned via DNA, etc

its innocent until proven guilty. And if found guilty, you are always guilty even if found not guilty later. you are still guilty

is it wrong, yes, can it be improved, yes, can it be eliminated? probably not

maybe the jurors should pay ;P

also, for profit prisons are a thing

the person making the mistake should be the one paying

well, technically it may not have been a mistake. There may just have been enough evidence to be found guilty, but not enough to show the opposite

I dunno if you could narrow it to a person... theres the arresting police, the evidence gatherers, the prosecution making a case, the jurors etc etc

beyond a reasonable doubt is a tricky thing

I mean wtf is that

its uncalculatable

so yeah, mistakes happen

(always talking US court and laws here people, just FYI)

yeah thats why we had to let the woman go on my case... because the other jurors didnt understand the reasonable doubt thing

fine, the person responsible,

False accusations, the accuser
DNA mistake, the biologist testing it
wrong conviction, the Juror's/judge

and the judge even told them, you should take alll circumstantial evidence into consideration... and some of them were still saying, yeah but its circumstantial...

well and some stuff like finger prints are not actually all that good

but we still use them

pretty sure circumstantial evidence isn't admissible here

this woman... was caught red handed in london heathrow airport, with a suitcase containing 3KG of uncut cocaine.. and still walked 😛

hmm I guess it is

"Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence."

regardless, the point is sometimes its not anyone's direct fault, or so many people's fault, that its not a good standard. At the end of the day, whoever funds the prison and/or the court system that put them there should pay for false imprisonment.

@LotheronPrime that is basically say if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, thats good enough reason to call it a duck even if you don't have DNA proof.

right

hmm if true: https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1001472417418620928