SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 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This discussion has been archived.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.
If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.
(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.