3 ms·
> jurors who, not unreasonably, believed that scientists in white coats knew what they were talking about I don't think I agree with the "not unreasonably" par
by jMyles 11y ago
> jurors who, not unreasonably, believed that scientists in white coats knew what they were talking about
I don't think I agree with the "not unreasonably" part. At what point do we as a society expect more from jurors? Ask yourself: If you or one of your close friends is called to be on a jury, do you think you'll just take some song-and-dance at face value without carefully weighing the ostensible expertise of each witness?
Rather, it seems to me that the process of juror selection has become so obtuse - yet so routine - that critical jurors who might lead the jury away from swallowing this kind of hogwash are filtered out before the case makes it to trial.
> There were no scientifically accepted standards for forensic testing, yet FBI experts routinely and almost unvaryingly testified, according to the Post, “to the near-certainty of ‘matches’ of crime-scene hairs to defendants, backing their claims by citing incomplete or misleading statistics drawn from their case work.”
...and nobody questioned this? No defense attorney or jury foreperson over the years brought any serious attention to this? That's the broken part.
That the government will lie is to be expected and is part of the nature of government. That people will unflinchingly proceed as though its lies are actually veracious and sober elements of a criminal trial - this is fixable.
> There is no lack of good ideas for reform. (Journalist Radley Balko and Roger Koppl, a professor of finance at Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management and a fellow at Syracuse’s Forensic and National Security Sciences Institute, offered up a laundry list of fixes in Slate—almost seven years ago.)* These solutions are not all that expensive or complicated. Among them: giving defendants their own forensic experts, untethering crime labs from the prosecutors and cops to which they now answer, verification and standards.
Radley has been so tireless in his reporting. Glad to see his work mentioned here. He's a true hacker and a great speaker and researcher. The recommendations mentioned here are so obvious and so easy that it's unthinkable that the failure to implement them is attributable to anything but the desire to continue to convict, truth be damned.
- jessaustin 11y agoMentioning the name "Radley Balko" during voir dire would probably be enough to get excluded from a criminal jury. If one somehow got on a jury (because the prosecutor assumed a typically ignorant pool?), one would still have to remain circumspect about one's reasons for doubting guilt. One could probably get away with "I don't believe the expert witness". More specificity, like "I've read lots of stuff that proves all of forensic 'science' to be horseshit", would probably result in dismissal along with contempt. The beast must be fed.
- lawpoop 11y agoI think a solution would be to move to a system of professional jurors. As it stands, the current jury system seems to be a horrible mess of people who can't get out of going to jury duty, relying not on understanding of the law or legal procedure, but rather the judge's instructions and the arguments of lawyers, and all the crime/courtroom drama shows and movies they've watched. They can't question lawyers during the trial or anything like that; they just watch a show for a while and then make a decision. Given that a jury decision is, in the most abstract sense, an alternative to a judge's decision, then it would make sense to have jurors who at least as competent as a judge is for the job. There would still be the issue of them becoming too close to prosecutors, lawyers, or judges, as we have now with judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement. But there are ways to address that. Nonetheless I believe it would be an improvement on the current system
- jMyles 11y agoExtending the credentialism that already plagues the "justice" system seems like the wrong move to me. I think we need a cultural change that makes jurors (and, more generally, participants in various civic activities) feel more empowered to think critically and speak out about their conclusions. It was pretty obvious that the bitemark stuff was complete junk science to anybody who read about it. The hair analysis may have been a little tougher, but I'm sure it was knowable.
- Spooky23 11y agoHave you ever served on a jury? Anecdotally, I've been on two juries. In both cases, I think the jurors did a good job with the facts as presented. One was a not guilty verdict, the other a guilty. I don't think that it's either appropriate or a reasonable expectation for a juror to judge the legitimacy of an entire field of forensics.