The False Criminal Conviction of the Innocent Defendant is a Tort

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard means there is roughly about an 80% chance the defendant is guilty. The roughly 20% innocence rate on death row corresponds well with that level of certainty. That standard applies to other criminal trials, and to plea bargains, no?

All torts immunities should end, those of the prosecutor, and those of the vile cult criminal on the bench. That a such an appallingly high failure rate, condemning innocents to death, is statutory means;

1) the tortfeasors have scienter;

2) the tortfeasors are doing nothing about it in any systematic manner; meaning they are taking no care whatsoever;

3) the indictment, and the guilty verdict are chattels, making them defective products, and product liability applies;

4) in its successful intended use, the false conviction will harm the innocent defendant, and strict liability applies;

5) the class of similarly situated, falsely convicted defendants justify a class declaration;

6) because freedom, earning ability, property have been taken away, because all criminal sanctions are procedures on the body, the deprivation of procedural due process rights is a constitutional tort, as well as a strict product liability tort, compounding the malfeasance, imagine a unlawful kidnapping.

If these torts take out a state, that would eliminate the cult criminals from the legislature and from the executive office. If the voters want to owe $billions, let them re-elect cult criminals to these highly responsible positions.

If the lawyer believes, torts deter and result in great improvements in products and in services, the criminal justice system is overly ripe for this remedy.