[The_Reader_David]

Perhaps you have forgotten the presumption of innocence, and the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which are enshrined in our law as a way of preventing abuse of state power.

It's easy for a cop to plant a bag of crack at a crime scene, but not so easy to plant one bearing the fingerprints of the supposed owner.

No one is a criminal until convicted as such by a jury of their peers.

If Hollywood is helping to keep prosecutors honest--prosecutors who as agents of the state are far more dangerous to our liberty than a handful of folk given their liberty because the state was not diligent enough in their prosecution--then for once Hollywood is providing a net good to America.

[wagglebee]

I agree with everything you are saying about the rule of law and the presumption of innocence. However, by your logic, any criminal who is savvy enough to wear gloves goes free. If you talk to prosecutors, they will tell you there is almost never the type of absolute evidence that TV and the movies suggest, thus the term is "reasonable doubt" rather than any shred of doubt.

No one is a criminal until convicted as such by a jury of their peers.

You might want to rethink this. Crimes are committed by criminals, yet many criminals are never caught, the absense of a conviction does not mean the crime did not occur. Additionally, some criminals are neither charged nor convicted, we had one in the Oval Office a few years back.

[DryProng]

I'm with you. I don't want perps to walk but folks, I'm from Louisiana. Our public officials including law enforcement often have earned a less than sterling reputations. Give me proof. BTW, I expect to be called for jury duty any day. I'll report back if I am selected.