convictions

If you think abusive behavior is OK, show some courage of your convictions and just say it outright.

The law imposed life sentences for almost any crime if the offender had two previous ‘‘serious’’ or ‘‘violent’’ convictions.

Edit: As the response to another post has stated, there may be avenues opened after decriminalization to appeal convictions.

Note that most of the convictions are for conspiracy to commit crimes or for selling tools expressly to commit them.

If false convictions had low incidence then innocent people would go to trial more often.

You mean assholes, insecure in their convictions?

Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

One or two convictions does not put an offender into this category.

In any case, federal convictions have no guarantee of retroactive ameliorative relief.

Have a fully professional Judiciary and legal system with No Elections what so ever - which removes most of the perverse incentives to get convictions.

Ergo everyone convicted is guilty and convictions are quite cheap.

This gives the DA an incentive to try to go for more false convictions since it will be a bigger stick to hold over future defendants.

Well, if you go with a "loser pays" system you run into the issue of false convictions and economic-disparity again.

But there is a valid question in the sense of "should a prosecutors role be to a) see the guilty punished, or b) to see the most convictions?".

So, while you can stand their, smug with your "technically correct" remark, the reality is "surveillance is an essential tool in fighting crime" has been proven to be correct time and time again, and has been instrumental in handing convictions for a long, long time.