There's no reason to think that that wouldn't have happened had we done so.
So your standard reduces to believing a thing because no one has proven that what didn't happen couldn't be true?
lain:
We also know that we [knowingly] acquit guilty people.
I feel confident that we have acquitted guilty people. Many people think OJ was guilty, by way of example. I'm sure it happens, though there's no empirical study that I know of suggesting it as more than an aberration.
We don't have to do that, and yet it's such a common occurrence,
Do you have any empirical, objective, peer reviewed study in support of the idea of a common occurrence?
it's a wonder we don't have more crime than we already do
Which would be a curious way of saying your inclination doesn't appear to be sustained by larger observation, which makes sense.
not that we don't already have a crime epidemic in our country...
What's the standard for equating crime in a free society with an epidemic?
Merriam-Webster has it that epidemics are defined as "excessively prevalent" occurrences "characterized by a widespread growth..."
Crime rates have largely fallen with the aging of the Baby Boomers. You might well suggest something like an epidemic of violent crime a few decades ago, when drug fueled violence within the Baby Boomer population took the nation to an average of double digit homicides per 100k. At present, despite an increase in mass violence, the overall rate is approximating the rate prior to that period of uncommon violence.
