It's a mixed bag of good and bad. It's good because as you mentioned - wastes less money. It's bad because anyone brought forward is expected to be guilty (even if innocent) because otherwise they would not have been prosecuted to begin with, right?
If you're being prosecuted you're essentially assumed guilty in all but the most rare cases.
With a 59% conviction rate - it means more people are being assumed innocent until proven guilty, or that the evidence is too weak to prosecute on. If that means innocent people don't get unfairly imprisoned - that's a good thing.
I'd rather see 10 guilty people walk free than one innocent unfairly imprisoned.
With a 59% conviction rate - it means more people are being assumed innocent until proven guilty, or that the evidence is too weak to prosecute on. If that means innocent people don't get unfairly imprisoned - that's a good thing.
If you can afford bail, a 59% conviction rate means that you're less likely to be wrongfully imprisoned. But there are a lot of people who can't post bail and end up spending months or years behind bars only to be found not guilty -- or even to have all the charges against them dropped.
Even when 9/10 of the innocent people arrested and unfairly imprisoned are poor black kids, but 9/10 of the guilty people who walk free are rich white men?
If you're being prosecuted you're essentially assumed guilty in all but the most rare cases.
With a 59% conviction rate - it means more people are being assumed innocent until proven guilty, or that the evidence is too weak to prosecute on. If that means innocent people don't get unfairly imprisoned - that's a good thing.
I'd rather see 10 guilty people walk free than one innocent unfairly imprisoned.