4 ms·
I don't think anybody is arguing that DNA testing could never be useful. What this piece is exposing is that a system we trust to be 99% accurate (because the s
by alexandercrohde 10y ago
I don't think anybody is arguing that DNA testing could never be useful. What this piece is exposing is that a system we trust to be 99% accurate (because the science, if properly executed is) becomes tainted by improper procedures.
We need to determine processes that make bias impossible. For example, samples should be sent without any markings, directions, or names. Simply to be "compared." Periodically, an oversight group should send known matching or not matching samples, and if an incorrect result is returned by the lab, the analyst should be fired. Should multiple analysis failures happen under one manager, than manager should be fired. This isn't rocket science.
- Gibbon1 10y agoI'm always shocked that there is no auditing going on at all. If a lab isn't blind audited periodically how can the 'evidence' be considered admissible?
- fucking_tragedy 10y agoThere are real consequences to ascertaining the accuracy of such evidence. Cases get reopen and verdicts thrown out. For years, prosecutors told jurors that DNA and hair tests were much more accurate than they truly were, some cases claimed that they were 100% accurate. Jurors then convicted possibly innocent people based on that lie. The result was many convictions can now be overturned, prosecutors reputations sullied and millions of dollars wasted. The people that pay to keep these labs running have no interest in digging that deep.
- Gibbon1 10y agoI remember a friend made a good point once, there is arguing for truth like a scientist, and there is arguing for truth like a lawyer.
- new299 10y agoHonestly the technology is also somewhat flawed. There are much better methods that could be used, and would be less prone to flawed procedures. It's just that forensics so highly conservative and unlikely to move to new platforms.