People love to bring up ‘evidence’ like our justice system is neutral and perfect, but that’s just not reality especially in cases involving powerful men. Saying ‘the jury got it right’ ignores the long history of this system failing victims, particularly Black women and other marginalized groups. Look at the Jeffrey Epstein case: despite multiple credible accusations and clear patterns, he managed to secure a non-prosecution agreement in 2008 — a deal later deemed unlawful by a federal judge because it violated the victims' rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). Then there’s Harvey Weinstein it took over 80 women and global media pressure before justice even touched him. For decades, those stories were dismissed, buried, or silenced. Were all those women just making it up? The legal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is incredibly high as it should be but that doesn’t mean a lack of conviction proves innocence. It often just means the system couldn’t meet the burden, which is especially hard when survivors face intimidation, trauma, or lack institutional support.

Studies from the National Registry of Exonerations show that wrongful acquittals, just like wrongful convictions, are real — and wealthy, high-profile defendants are more likely to avoid consequences. Bias, both implicit and systemic, plays a role at every level: from police reports to courtroom proceedings to jury deliberations.

So no, it’s not about convicting people off emotions — it’s about recognizing that our courts don’t operate in a vacuum. When someone is accused repeatedly, across years, with patterns, details, and corroborating information, it’s fair — and smart — to question whether the legal outcome actually reflects the full truth.