If you're locked away for an extended period for a serious crime then, presently in the UK, my conjecture is that you're probably close to the crime -- I mean you're an associate of the criminals without necessarily being an accomplice; or an already convicted criminal; or guilty of minor crimes if you're being held on remand (https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/remand) in most cases?
In the UK IIUC there's a 85% arrest-to-conviction rate across all crimes.
> ...my conjecture is that you're probably close to the crime...
So you are OK with people's lives being fucked up just because they've been accused of something? You do realize that anyone can accuse anyone of anything anytime, right? There's a reason we go through investigations and trials.
You don't get locked up on remand just because someone made an accusation against you. People making specious accusations do get locked up sometimes.
To your question: obviously not. That statement discredits you as a genuine enquirer. Strawmen and incredulity don't really help us make progress here.
Please point out the strawman in my argument. I currently do not see one, and your statement discredits you as a genuine enquirer. False claims and incredulity don't really help us make progress here.
> You don't get locked up on remand just because someone made an accusation against you.
Yes, you can. Once accused, you then go to trial to see if the accusation is correct.
What statistics do you want to see? How many people make false accusations? How many people are arrested on false accusations? How many people use "guilty by association" logic because they can't be arsed to figure out the real story? How many lives are ruined because you would rather we just bypass the judicial system?
