SoylentNews is people
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This discussion has been archived.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.
An honest tale speeds best being plainly told.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @03:49AM
About half a decade or so ago, a homeless man got into a confrontation with two or three Eureka police officers and was beaten and kicked until he died.
Because the homeless person was found to have LSD in his blood stream, the coroner announced that the homeless guy had died of an LSD overdose.
Someone challenged this on Craigslist and did an extensive analysis suggesting that in order for the homeless guy to have died of an LSD overdose he would have had to have had his stomach swollen with paper tabs and in any case, if he was the sort of person to carry around millions of dollars worth of LSD, and use it ... why was he homeless?
The coroner's report, I'm pleased to say, was reversed. The county had someone else come in and redo the analysis. The coroner lost his job.
I haven't had too much respect for coroners (or Humboldt County, for that matter) ever since.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 14 2014, @05:06AM
On Craigslist?
I wouldn't buy a used bicycle off of Craigslist.
Why would i buy a scientific analysis off of Craigslist.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @10:55AM
If this is true, then you are prejudiced against craigslist.
This is typical of people; To erroneously over-associate points of data which are actually unrelated.
I like to think it's a necessary feature for any intelligence to be capable of self-learning.
There is a pickup-artist "mind-hack" that is used to great effect: A stranger, upon meeting you for the first time, will associate you with any feelings they have at the time. If you get them to merely think about nice past experiences, enough to feel good - they will associate the "goodness" with you, and consequently will like you.
Repeat ad-nauseum if you want them to marry you. It is brutally, terrifyingly effective.
But it only works if they don't know about the technique. If they know you are only trying to manipulate them, they will be inoculated against it.
Craigslist is just a service. It is full of scum, because people couldn't be bothered helping cleaning it up. It has a mechanism to report scams, but most people couldn't be bothered. Once they realize they've "fallen for it" they just want to have nothing to do with anything associated with "it", and this includes even reporting the scam.
"The standard you set is the one you walk past."
Posting as AC as my identity rightly ought have nothing to do with the quality of expressed ideas - the latter is for you to establish.
If you're prejudicial against "AC", well....