Judging by the article she wasn't fabricating evidence, but rather she was "strengthening" what she was given. All her cases clealry need to be re-evaluated, but unconditionally releasing everyone convicted is hardly a sensible option.
There is no way of knowing of that "strengthened" evidence was the difference between any given person walking or going to jail. They all need to be retried, and imprisoning them until that can happen is an injustice. Give them all the opportunity to make bail again until new trials can be arranged.
If the circumstances of their crime make it such that they cannot be retried (for example, all the substantial evidence was bloodwork that was corrupted and cannot be taken again, many months or years later) then they should be released. Guessing that they actually are bad guys isn't good enough.
Article One of the United States Constitution guarantees the writ of habeas corpus. If their conviction was based on the "strengthened" evidence, I believe not releasing them would be unlawful detention and be unconstitutional.
if their offense was not sufficient to warrant holding in jail before the trial I think they should be let out on ankle bracelets or such.
The simple matter here is, the evidence was faulty. Hopefully no prosecutors were in on it, but if the evidence was used to convict then any conviction is suspect.
Numbers don't matter when justice is determined. The government should have better means to validate its employees are doing what they are supposed to do.
I would have liked to seen the Chemist sentenced to life, or at least the cumulative number of years of all sentences with tampered evidence.
How many of those 190,000 pose a risk of harm to other people? How many of them were violent, or sexual[1], offenders?
[1] Laws are different in different places, but here I'm talking about actual sex offences, not things like public urination. (Which is gross, but usually not a sexual offence).
It doesn't really matter what their offense was if the prosecution can't convict them for it legitimately. Any convictions dependent on that chemist's work should be void.
