1) Most people charged with a crime these day are usually guilty of it. The public has made it pretty clear they would rather see no one charged if the crime is a legit whodunit -- no one desires to see innocent people arrested and charged just to give the impression of safety. Prosecutors, and downwards (police) feel pressure to only file and prosecute cases that are legitimately believed to be of truth regarding the suspect. That said, you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the state. Even if we can mostly feel that you did it, if it can not be put before a jury to return a guilty verdict, you are not to face penalty in our society (mostly; ignore OJ's civil case... that's a pretty rare exception to be honest).

2) I understand why judges seem automatic -- but remember this: in a criminal trial (minus your option to do a bench trial), you are found guilty or not-guilty by a jury of your (location) peers. The judge has his own opinion, but he is restricted based on the guilty/not-guilty finding of the jury, and sometimes state/federal sentencing guidelines. Of course there are prick judges who SENTENCEMAXXXX people just to be an asshole - no one with an ounce of common sense will endorse that. In general, I trust and expect judges to apply their experience of both law and life in determining what is the appropriate penalty after someone is found guilty.

I view arms control as a reduction of the number of variables in play (launch vehicles, warheads, etc). Both sides will always retain their God-given right to unleash nuclear holocaust, but both sides also reason they don't need 10,000+ warheads to do that. They can accomplish that goal with far less nukes than war planning 40 - 50 years ago called for. Partly that is due to accuracy having increased rapidly since gen 1 ICBM. There is a great book about missile guidance and accuracy, it is called "Inventing Accuracy". If you can't find a local copy or can't afford it, the Internet Archive has a PDF you can check out and read. Really insightful as to the "why" we don't require 30,000 nukes (1965) -- we only require ~5000 today and the enhanced accuracy makes them even more potent than prior bomb designs (which had a much larger yield).

Yeah, it isn't as simple as "le humans are bad and mean mmkay." Like most things that remain unsolved, it is complicated.