Should that not be the job of a defense attorney? Surely the defendant knew he didn’t commit that crime; so how come the defendant didn’t look through the documents with his attorney and go “wait, this isn’t right”? If not even the defense is competently representing its own interests, no wonder things like this happen.
Shouldn’t people be innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around?
How can you convict an innocent man based on a typo in the username? Don’t you need more evidence that to convict someone? Like an IP address, a face, maybe compare the dick to the picture that was sent or at least have some solid evidence.
Should that not be the job of a defense attorney? Surely the defendant knew he didn’t commit that crime; so how come the defendant didn’t look through the documents with his attorney and go “wait, this isn’t right”? If not even the defense is competently representing its own interests, no wonder things like this happen.
Shouldn’t people be innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around?
How can you convict an innocent man based on a typo in the username? Don’t you need more evidence that to convict someone? Like an IP address, a face, maybe compare the dick to the picture that was sent or at least have some solid evidence.
That too, yes.
That’s a responsibility, but it’d be nice to not have a single point of failure. Multiple safeguards reduces the chance of overall failure.