SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
In 2009, a National Academy of Sciences committee embarked on a long-overdue quest to study typical forensics analyses with an appropriate level of scientific scrutiny--and the results were deeply chilling. Aside from DNA analysis, not a single forensic practice held up to rigorous inspection.
Far from an infallible science, forensics is a decades-long experiment in which undertrained lab workers jettison the scientific method in favor of speedy results that fit prosecutors' hunches. No one knows exactly how many people have been wrongly imprisoned--or executed--due to flawed forensics. But the number, most experts agree, is horrifyingly high. A complete overhaul of our evidence analysis is desperately needed.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Forensic "Science" is Anything But
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 30 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You will be given a post of trust and responsibility.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday June 13 2014, @03:48PM
In my opinion, the root problem in the US is that the laboratories are funded by the executive branch, and I believe accountable to and under control of the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor is paying for confirmation bias to convict the suspect he's indicted, not for a fair trial that could reveal the prosecutor chose the wrong suspect.
If I'm right, then the solution would be to make the laboratories independent: put them under control of the judicial branch.
I don't think this will realistically happen, because the legislators would have to make it happen and *their* incentives are screwed up. Locking up "bad guys" (oh how I hate it went adults use that label to describe real people) is an achievement you can measure and take to the polls no matter whether the evidence used to convict was dodgy. Making sure trials are fair so no one gets railroaded by prosecutorial overreach? Not exactly a catchy campaign slogan, that.
Ultimately, meaningful improvement to the justice system will require the public to reject politicians who claim to be "tough on crime" as the enemies of freedom and decency that they truly are.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Friday June 13 2014, @05:04PM
Everything about investigations now slants it for conviction.
Getting proof person X did Y = positive
Getting proof person X did NOT do Y = you wasted time when you could be finding who did do Y, stop wasting time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by emg on Friday June 13 2014, @05:42PM
The fundamental problem is the shift from the original police goal of preventing crime to the current system of solving crimes that already happened.
You don't need forensic science to solve a crime which didn't happen because the cops were patrolling the area the criminal planned to rob. Nor do you need forensic science to prove Joe Burglar was robbing a house if the cops caught him red-handed leaving with his loot as they patrolled the street.
But that's boring work that's far less exciting than car chases, smashing down doors, or CSI.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:54AM
There was never a time when the police were tasked with preventing crime. And you wouldn't want to live in a society where that was indeed the way things we we organized.
To serve and protect is folly. There aren't enough cops to prevent every mugging, theft, or murders.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday June 13 2014, @05:47PM
The way I see it, we're on a historical progression from totally unfair courts toward increasingly fair ones. In the 1300s you could get convicted easily because what passed for "evidence" was basically your reputation: the royal magistrate would ask your neighbors if you were a good and honest person, and if they said no, then off to the pillory or the gallows with you! In the 1800s the only evidence available was circumstantial evidence, eyewitness testimony, and maybe footprints. In the 1900s we got fingerprints and blood typing and the expectation started to emerge that to get "beyond a reasonable doubt" the prosecutor would need to produce some physical facts to establish the defendant was present at the scene of the crime. But especially in the first half of the century it was common to stack the jury and ask leading questions and all kinds of shenanigans. So today even with all the bias, an innocent person has a much better chance of exoneration than he had in 1314 or 1814 or 1914. There is reason to believe that in 2114, the courts will be much fairer than they are today, and there is enough of a gap between where we are and where we want to be that there's cause to get angry and agitate for change.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by DrMag on Friday June 13 2014, @09:19PM
Unfortunately, a court can be fair and corrupt--they're not mutually exclusive.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 13 2014, @10:02PM
Without asking for a change, it won't happen.
Fingerprints and blood type testing are simple enough for anyone to understand and can be performed in a "non wizard mode" - no longer so with the current day techniques.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:20AM
I think you'd be surprised to find out that fingerprints aren't so simple. Especially partials.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday June 13 2014, @06:54PM
Actually, the root problem is that prosecutors no longer do their job. Their job is NOT and never has been to get people convicted. Their job is to serve justice by getting guilty people convicted. They have forgotten that one little qualifier. They seem entirely dis-interested in the potential defendant's actual guilt or innocence. They care only for getting the conviction at all costs.
This shows plainly in cases where a prisoner is exonerated by incontrovertible new evidence. Amazingly, in those cases the prosecutor's office frequently tries to argue against a hearing on the evidence or tries to get the evidence rejected. They seem willing to say nearly anything to avoid the conviction being overturned. I have even seen cases in the news where after all of that fails and the conviction is overturned, they STILL delay the innocent prisoner's actual release for as long as possible.
Perverting the forensics lab is just one more manifestation of that fundamental problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:33AM