Primarily because if courts admit it’s fallible, everyone convicted in part on bite evidence would need to be retried. Which would be a crazy amount of work. And people are lazy. Epically courts.
If they don’t bother releasing people locked up under laws that no longer exist, why would they bother retrying all those people? To be clear they should do both, but they don’t do much of either.
Right or wrong, they committed a crime at the time. A change in law doesn’t really invalidate the crime committed. That differs from this where the conviction itself was based on faulty evidence or procedure.
Just for clarity sake, I don’t really agree with this but I do think it’s a valid difference between the situations
Primarily because if courts admit it’s fallible, everyone convicted in part on bite evidence would need to be retried. Which would be a crazy amount of work. And people are lazy. Epically courts.
If they don’t bother releasing people locked up under laws that no longer exist, why would they bother retrying all those people? To be clear they should do both, but they don’t do much of either.
Right or wrong, they committed a crime at the time. A change in law doesn’t really invalidate the crime committed. That differs from this where the conviction itself was based on faulty evidence or procedure.
Just for clarity sake, I don’t really agree with this but I do think it’s a valid difference between the situations