I absolutely see your point, but it almost sounds like you'd be OK with letting the other 92% off with no consequences, just in case. (Not saying you said that at all, just that it could be inferred.) I have very mixed feelings about laws and false convictions, because it's *very* hard to know where to draw the line. Obviously, I'm against false convictions, but the debate arises at some point because we can't accept that every offense can't be absolutely factually verified, so we can't be sure what does and doesn't merit ruining the accused's life... but we also can't just decide that any offense that could be falsified gets a free pass. There's no one all-purpose, ironclad answer.