We all have the problem of what do you do with the not-guilty-yet in free and democratic societies where you have the presumption of innocence. It's a very difficult problem.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Rather leave the crime of the guilty unpunished than condemn the innocent.
People are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
I have no better way of judging guilt or innocence than anyone else.
Our constitutionally-based criminal justice system places a high value on protecting the innocent. Among its central tenets is the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict someone without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some may remember, if you have good memories, that there used to be a concept in Anglo-American law called a presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now that's so deep in history that there's no point even bringing it up, but it did once exist.
When a person is found not guilty, they're found not guilty.
It doesn't help to fight crime to put people in prison who are innocent.
Innocence does not find near so much protection as guilt.
Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.
More oftentimes than not, you're automatically guilty before innocent.