SoylentNews

Forensic "Science" is Anything But

posted by LaminatorX on Friday June 13 2014, @03:09PM   
from the Injustice-for-All dept.

Anonymous Coward writes:

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.

• Re:Simple but difficult solutionRe:Simple but difficult solution (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Friday June 13 2014, @05:47PM

  by Sir Garlon (1264) on Friday June 13 2014, @05:47PM (#55066)

  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.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+3
  Insightful=3, Total=3
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		5

• Re:Simple but difficult solution(Score: 2) by DrMag on Friday June 13 2014, @09:19PM

  by DrMag (1860) on Friday June 13 2014, @09:19PM (#55123)

  Unfortunately, a court can be fair and corrupt--they're not mutually exclusive.

  Parent

• Re:Simple but difficult solutionRe:Simple but difficult solution (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 13 2014, @10:02PM

  by c0lo (156) on Friday June 13 2014, @10:02PM (#55134) Journal

  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.

  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

  Parent

  • Re:Simple but difficult solution(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:20AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @02:20AM (#55172)

    I think you'd be surprised to find out that fingerprints aren't so simple. Especially partials.

    Parent