There seem to be a lot of cases with innocent people released from prison lately... It's very sad that so many years were stolen from them...
But, I do wonder, are these all cases of people proven innocent, or just of people not guilty thanks to a technicality?
For example, there was a rape/murder in my city years ago for which two men were arrested and confessed. But then DNA tests released them. The one guy was guilty - his confession corroborated with the other guy's story. But I guess he didn't "leave evidence," and whoever else the young woman - a college student - "saw" that night before the rape never stepped forward (probably a married man).
Having the semen not containing the DNA of the accused is a technicality?
The guy was prosecuted for rape. The DNA didn't match. That's beyond reasonable doubt, that approaches No Friggin' Way.
Some women are unwilling to acknowledge having sex with another person.
I can't tell what you are talking about. Do you have a link to that case. People are not just realeased by DNA tests. What about these "DNA tests released them" as you say? Why do you say they were guilty...what was the evidence used to convict them? Were they convited at trial, then released later? Your scant facts don't seem to make any point.