> Partly because it was founded (in part) by oppressed minorities fleeing states where the were constantly harassed by authorities

Nah, it's a principle that was brought in from English common law. E.g Blackstone's Ratio[0] was published at roughly the same time as the American revolution was playing out, and cited plenty of earlier formulations of the same principle. Habeas Corpus was codified in the Magna Carta, but predated it as a concept.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

> In the US, it's seen as a God-given truth that no innocent person should ever be punished.

That's a rather rose-tinted view of criminal justice here... I do hear that sentiment a lot here, but it's just words, and as you sort of hint at, the reality doesn't match the words.

> But is it OK to risk punishing a few innocent people if it greatly reduces the amount of suffering caused by crime?

That's a big philosophical question. I argue that no, that's not ok, and I'd rather guilty people go free (and possibly hurt others) than put an innocent person behind bars.

My wife was traveling in Central America last year, and befriended another traveler from a nearby country. This woman told my wife that her country used to be fairly dangerous (both for locals and tourists) due to the proliferation of criminal gangs, but that the current president had mobilized the police/military and aggressively cleaned things up. She mentioned that a large number of innocent people got caught in the crossfire and and were now rotting in jail, but if that was the price of safety for everyone else, she was ok with it.

I had a very visceral negative reaction to this story, and found it disappointing that someone would hold that opinion. But I suppose it's a lot easier to take that stance when it's not you or someone you care about being falsely accused and sent to prison.

So I think that's another way to look at your question: would you be ok going to prison as an innocent person, as a known, understood, and societally-accepted side-effect of a safer society? If the answer is no, then you can't expect anyone else to do it. And even if the answer is yes, that's still a personal decision/opinion, and still can't expect anyone else to do it.

(For the record: hell no, I would not be ok with that.)

It is not seen that way in the US except during high school civics classes. There have been multiple people executed by the state who were publicly known to be innocent at the time. https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/30/texas-james-broadnax...

Basically you’re talking about implementing The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Many innocent people have been sentenced to death in the US. The idea that jail or punishment solves crime also has no basis in fact.

> In the US, it's seen as a God-given truth that no innocent person should ever be punished.

In the US, just as in Japan, as soon as you are arrested they begin punishing you. If there were a real assumption of innocence, jail would be pleasant and comfortable, and if you were WFH you wouldn't miss a day. There is a material presumption of guilt, even if there's some sort of ethereal theoretical presumption of innocence.

Instead, you're in a horrible cell, eating horrible food, dressed in a humiliating way, treated in a humiliating way, and exposed to dangerous people. Unless you can pay a bond which you will never get back (because you are too poor to pay bail.) You haven't been convicted of anything. The fine you're facing might be lower than your bond, and the time you're facing might be shorter than the time you'd have to wait in jail to go to court.

Back in the 19th century. De Tocqueville talks about American justice favouring the rich since they could post bail and the poor could not. I have seen documentaries about US bail hostels and some of them seem like horrific places as bad as prisons in some other countries and this is before you've been found guilty of anything.

The US only requires a jury to believe someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is accepted that there will be false positives where an innocent person will falsely get convicted due to this, but the hope is that the trade off is worth it.

I don’t believe in the premise.

Arrested is not the same as convicted. I lived in Japan for a few years, and I have heard of similar situations to what the article describes.

In Japan you can be arrested while an investigation is in process, only afterwards you will be indicted. Additionally, Japan does not permit defendants to post bail prior to an indictment.

Yes Japan has a really high conviction rate, but that is because they indict only cases were a conviction is likely.

Arrests don't need to lead to the person being indicted.

It's actually not. You can be arrested and then released without charges, which is not a conviction but does not factor into the conviction rate statistic.

Not surprising if you can detain people for long periods under harsh conditions without charging them.

If they confess, it counts as a win. If they don’t, you release them but it’s not a loss (as they were not charged).

> Japan has a conviction rate of 99.8%

So does the US.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/11/only-2-of...

The author doesn't seem to have been charged with anything, so her release doesn't affect the 'conviction rate' - but she was arrested.

By comparison, you might consider https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/14/fewer-tha... :

> In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted

Of charges, not arrests.

And your point is?