The story was concocted, not real, though cases have arisen that are of similar nature. It baffles me how many decisions that humans have taken control over making without the adequate equipment to do so (brains that are free of biases and more perfectly able to reason). And the thing is, they probably all 'feel' they are correct, and that they are smart. Post-hoc, they will sooth themselves with rationalizing their decisions, because this is more comfortable than admitting one could be incorrect.

The incentive structure is also broken in our judicial system. The incentives should be to try and ascertain the truth in a situation (or at least that which has the highest probability of being true), but with a little more money added into the equation, one side is absolutely capable of defending their client whether they are guilty or not. A lawyer wants to win a case, not to determine the truth of the situation. Jurors want to go home, and judges want to eat.