More to the point, there is no disincentive for convicting an innocent person unless the victim can prove that the prosecutor was acting in bad faith and has the resources to mount a lawsuit. It is an extremely hard case to win, and even if they do win the government is punished (via monetary judgement), not the prosecutor.
If prosecutors were punished for every conviction that is later overturned then they might be more reluctant to push for conviction on flimsy fabricated evidence.
Are you entirely sure? Someone's race, ability to pay a lawyer, and prior history can be huge factors in convicting them.
Convicting a poor black man who dropped a cigarette butt at the scene hours prior to the crime may ultimately be far easier than finding the actual perp.
One of the big problems is the anti scientific method.
the scientific method consists of formulating a hypothesis and a method of testing the probability of failing to reject a null version. in common speech this means make an assumption, observe data/evidence and alter the assumption to fit the evidence. in the case of anti science such as forensics or investigations of crime, the opposite occurs. the assumption or theory is made the data or evidence is observed, and discounted or re interpreted to fit the theory.
