> Is it correct to sacrifice catching the bad guy to protect the small chance that someone is wrongly accused? Large swaths of the US legal system seem to thin

> Is it correct to sacrifice catching the bad guy to protect the small chance that someone is wrongly accused? Large swaths of the US legal system seem to think so, it's why "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a requirement for a criminal conviction. Whether that translates to moral correctness is up to you but in my opinion, yes, that's a reasonable sacrifice. And that totally ignores that the probability of a court of law getting something wrong being different from a bunch of internet vigilantes getting it wrong, which of course changes the equation quite a lot.