I think using the words “guilty” and “innocent” here is imprecise. I believe what you meant was that the officials involved somehow “know” that the defendant committed certain crimes that they are unable to prove in a court of law – but that doesn’t equal “guilty”.
Similarly, when a conviction is overturned, he’s not “innocent”, he’s “not guilty”.
But it seems like this argument would lead to a conclusion that whenever officials believe that a defendant committed a crime, but don’t have the evidence to prove them guilty in a court of law, that it’s ok for them to go to jail anyhow? How much do we trust these “officials” of whom you speak?
Usually, more than I trust the people who are trying to get them compensation. They may just be journalists wanting to make a saint out of a sinner because it’s better copy.
Are you talking about the population of exonerees or the population of convicted felons, or some other population?
In most cases of exoneration, they’ve done their best (or worst) to get a conviction. If they know of other “secret” evidence, they’ve tried to use it and had it rejected.
I will agree, though, that some of them probably think they know better, and some probably assume everyone they encounter is guilty. That would explain some cases of official indifference. But Hornoff’s case is especially salient in this regard. He was a police detective. He wasn’t a career criminal. In fact, a court ordered the police department that had employed him to reinstate him, an order the deprtment continues to fight. http://dreierbaritz.com/assets/attachments/60.pdf
(Actually, the case may have been resolved through mediation.)
One of my biggest fears is being wrongfully convicted of a crime. The injustice of it is terrifying. I try to lead my life well, and I hate to think that just by being in the wrong place, or looking like the wrong person, could ruin my life to such an extent.