It is? It reads like a mix of truth and sophistry. If somebody frames you for murder, you may well blame the prosecution for being incompetent, but the main guilty party is certainly the one who planted the evidence in the first place.
Yes, the murderer is still guilty of murder, just like the fraudster is still guilty of fraud.
But this doesn't account for the additional damage caused by complete reliance on "evidence" that shouldn't even pass a sniff test. One would very much fault a prosecutor for continuing to press a murder case with the sole piece of evidence being a typewritten note saying "I, John Smith, committed this murder".
(If I understand the original argument) a better analogy would be being framed for murder while the guy who framed you cashed out a life insurance policy on you. You neither took out the policy nor benefited from it - yet the burden is on you, not those who paid out incorrectly, to prove your innocence.
The prosecutors aren't being blamed here (by OP), but those who profit by blind prosecution are.
