zlacker

I wasn't replying to a claim that a high conviction rate is a good thing (or better than a lower one).

I was replying to a claim that a high conviction rate somehow suggests we should dispense with the idea that, as a society, we should not presume guilt.

grumple, who I replied to, seemed to me to be suggesting that because the federal government has a high conviction rate, we should assume the accused are guilty.

I'm suggesting that because there is compelling evidence that many guilty verdicts are obtained through coercion, we should not make that assumption.

>>tnorth+(OP)
Nobody is suggesting we presume guilt. The suggestion is that we're not required to defer opinions about guilt until after a jury trial, which is sensible.