> protagonist has to confront the fact that 75% of his successes were incorrect would be great
I would assume that "successes" here are people in prison who turned out were innocent.
I would assume that "successes" here are people in prison who turned out were innocent.
Of course the show is not a broad coverage of the detectives process. The detectives featured almost always are the most senior detectives and of course they cover situations on camera where ... maybe somethings won't happen.
The cases featured in the show they almost never actually end up prosecuting anyone without quite a bit of evidence. They're not really the kind of cases you hear about where someone is just prosecuted on hearsay and one bit of evidence and so on, that i'm sure is by design (for the tv show). Detectives show a lot of skepticism about what people too, that was interesting. They follow those leads but those featured seem highly flexible.
I wonder how much of the bad prosecutions / situations are about the prosecutor rather than detectives.
The prime example is Sherlock Holmes who points at murder based on bit of dust caught of hat or some such. Any show where capture is based on subtle clues or manipulative trics would likely lead to a lot of false convictions. Or the ones where detectives mistreat suspects until they admit guilt - false guilt of admission from mistreated prisoner is actually a thing (especially when they are also sleep deprived or mentally challenged).
Plenty of cold case shows that start the episode 5 years after the original investigation, when new evidence comes in to clear the convict.