Juries in criminal trials do not base verdicts on uncorroborated testimony given by anyone witnessing. Rightly so, because it is usually prudent to be highly skeptical of unsubstantiated claims made by any one person. But then, to be consistent, juries should end an all-too-common practice: convicting defendants on the basis of an uncorroborated full confession.

Basically the question says: the judge does not want to convict a person because the claims are indeed not so solid but they judge nonetheless.

convicting defendants on the basis of an uncorroborated full confession.

We can reinforce the argument if we find a reason that even if the judge is wrong in the end is correct because they do not have other choice and they adhere to all-too-common practice.

(D) Highly suggestible people who are accused of wrongdoing sometimes become so unsure of their own recollection of the past that they can come to accept the accusations made against them.

if they accept the accusations we do not need to point out that the judge is wrong in the end