If you have to choose between tending to let the guilty go free or tending to convict the innocent I probably prefer the former, even without the death penalty.
I agree. I do not think it's morally justifiable to allow society to punish innocent people under the guise of catching all the guilty ones.
As for the nature of law...I think it's most likely that the law is written and handled in a way that's generally beneficial to "the state", which is a kind of nebulous thing to say; at the same time, the court has to act as agents for the people against some actions the state take that are obviously harmful or unjust (as in the case linked). It makes for an odd juxtaposition, particularly when you consider how Supreme Court nominees are chosen (and this is a good time to remind everyone that not one justice on the Supreme Court was a defense attorney; all were prosecutors working for the US government in some capacity). Of course legislature makes the laws in the first place, but even to the courtroom itself, everything it slanted toward the prosecution.
I think of some particular procedures that are just obviously beneficial to the state to the point of being unfair in an allegedly impartial procedure. The defense cannot call police officers to testify on behalf of their client; any prosecutor will object and argue that it's hearsay, and the judge will side with them. The prosecution has the near-limitless resources of their respective state or federal government behind them, while the defendant must either rely on their own wealth or charity to provide for his defense. Police officers are given incentives to have "closed cases", which means cases turned over to the prosecutor's office that the police are done with; this encourages finding a perpetrator for a given crime, but not necessarily the perpetrator. The state handles all relevant evidence themselves - and yes, there are procedures for collecting and documenting evidence to ensure nothing is tampered with, but there are cases where obvious tampering has gone on with little to no consequences for the alleged offending officers (The Netflix special Making a Murderer has some instances of this as well in the Stephen Avery rape/murder case). Judges and prosecutors and police often work together in many instances (issuing of warrants, for instance), granting them familiarity that defense attorneys would likely have less reason to have. There are more, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
So I think, at least in terms of criminal proceedings, it's simply slanted hard toward the state against the defense. I don't think being wealthy (outside of being able to hire a better defense) gives you any kind of protection from that. I think having connections to government officials and senators and the like will give you protection, of a kind, but that has to do with corruption in government more than individual wealth affecting trial outcomes (although the wealthy have the edge there, too).
Yes, no shortage of hard things.
If you have to choose between tending to let the guilty go free or tending to convict the innocent I probably prefer the former, even without the death penalty.
From past conversations with lawyers I think one of central concepts is respect for or trust in 'the law'. If you have a reasonable belief in the system then you're more likely to accept the morally questionable aspects of it as necessary for the greater good.
If on the other hand you view the law as something made by and for the rich and powerful, and full of loopholes; then individuals perhaps become more responsible for their particular parts in the process.
I think the fact that this case ever went before a judge supports the latter viewpoint. The county paid good money hoping that (what most consider to be) a plainly unjust argument would be supported. Was it an isolated decision made by a fool, or do they have a better appreciation of the nature of the law than we do?