This thread was spinned off from such a comparison: comparison of cybercrime conviction rates to conviction rates of the Spanish Inquisition. That sounds anachr

This thread was spinned off from such a comparison: comparison of cybercrime conviction rates to conviction rates of the Spanish Inquisition. That sounds anachronistic indeed in my opinion. I'm also curious if someone has good sources pointing out that the conviction rate of the Inquisition really was 99.6 %. But of course, if we go back to cybercrime, a conviction rate of 99.6 % may be indicative of two different things: either the courts will convict almost any and every prosecution, or then only rock-solid cases are even prosecuted. I tend to think that it's mostly the latter: a small proportion of all cases is ever prosecuted, but those cases are then so clear regarding "what happened" that conviction rates are high. It is then another matter "what it means", i.e. the facts are not disputed but the interpretation of law is, and this is why convictions may be repealed on appeal.