Not really. In the real world, if a lawyer commits a crime, that doesn't suddenly overturn every case they ever tried.
If a prosecutor or cop commits a crime, then it can very well overturn cases they were involved in, yes.
Recent news from real-life Gotham City again:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/18-men-fr...police-sergeant-convictions/story?id=58040260
(After a cop is found to be corrupt, 18 convictions that he was involved in are overturned due to claims that his corruption extended to planting evidence).
And this is not a new concept - it's the very basis of the real-life story of Robert Leuci, "Prince of the City," which was turned into a Sydney Lumet film and said to be one of the influences on "The Dark Knight Rises."
That doesn't mean justice was done. Due process laws exist to protect the innocent more than they exist to protect the truly guilty.
And in this case, due process laws would be exploited by the guilty to vacate convictions. Nobody's arguing that the criminals Dent put away wouldn't "deserve" to stay - the point is that, even though they deserve to stay, they would have the opportunity to be released if Dent's crimes are revealed.
If a criminal gets let off due to a legal technicality or improper police proceedure, that is usually seen as a massive failure.
Yes - a massive failure of the police and the justice system. Specifically, in the case of "The Dark Knight," a failure on the part of the District Attorney's office (the District Attorney himself, Harvey Dent).
And what do we call it when Batman (our hero) does almost literally the same thing several times throughout the series? Hanging Flass upside down over the edge of a building, pushing a suspect off a three story building to deliberately break his legs during an interrogation.
I'm confused - what is your point here? Do you not understand the difference between Harvey Dent and Batman? One is an officer of the court, charged with enforcing society's laws. The other is an outlaw vigilante that is in no way a part of the justice system.
As a society, we have higher standards for cops than we do for criminals (yes, that includes Batman).
He was not torturing the guy. He had him in a chair, threatening to kill him. I did not see Dent harming him physically nor mentally.
He told him to either talk or he would kill him, simple.
That is torture. It's in the very definition (UN Torture Convention of 1984):
"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical
or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Shoving a gun up to someone's forehead and demanding information, with the threat of death, fits that definition to a tee. But of course you don't need to read the legalese to know that - you already know it's torture because, if it weren't, then it'd be an everyday occurrence in police interrogation rooms. And you know that it's not.
And even if you didn't - the movie spells it out for you. Batman's response to the torture he witnesses: "If anyone saw this, everything would be undone. The criminals you arrested would be released and Jim Gordon will have died for nothing."
This turned into a pretty good debate. Very good points on both sides of the coin.
I see what you did there...