7 ms·

This is something I find extremely scary, because an unusual series of events (accidental fire, accidental drowning, suicide) could be framed to look like somet

by seibelj 10y ago

This is something I find extremely scary, because an unusual series of events (accidental fire, accidental drowning, suicide) could be framed to look like something entirely different (arson, murder), which could drag any one of us into a nightmare. If you don't have the money to hire your own experts and a strong legal team, potentially bankrupting yourself, you are at the mercy of a motivated prosecutor with nearly unlimited resources. In 2009 a scathing report was released by the National Academy of Sciences that essentially says that blood spatter, handwriting, hair, fingerprints, and bite mark analysis are all junk science[0]. If two "experts" can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions, how is this science? It's opinion wrapped up as scientific fact. Who knows how many people are innocently convicted. It's terrifying. An excerpt from WikiPedia about hair analysis: The outcry from defense attorneys has forced the FBI to open up on disputed hair analysis matches since 2012. The Justice department began an "unprecedented" review of old cases involving hair analysis in July 2013, examining more than 21,000 cases referred to the FBI Lab's hair unit from 1982 through 1999, and including as many as 27 death penalty convictions in which FBI experts may have exaggerated the reliability of hair analysis in their testimony. The review is still in progress, but in 2015, it released findings on 268 trials examined so far in which hair analysis was used. The review concluded that in 257 of these 268 trials, the analysts gave flawed testimony that overstated the accuracy of the findings in favor of the prosecution. About 1200 cases remain to be examined.[1] [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05forensics.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05forensics.html?pagewa... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_analysis#Microscopic_hair_analysis_in_forensics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_analysis#Microscopic_hair...

gohrt 10y ago
"Opinion" is a subjective judgment based on personal weighing of facts by priority and probability. We must rely on judges and juries and expert opinions to form opinions. This junk forensics is just "guessing" and "prejudice".
DINKDINK 10y ago
>If two "experts" can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions, how is this science? Scientism is a mental disease perpetuated by people who seek social persuasion through whatever means convinces a person/the public rather than objective epidemiologically derived truth. It's easier to appear smart by accepting dubious "science" than rebuking it with skepticism.
- handedness 10y ago
  What's more, the scientific field is full of (actual) experts looking at identical evidence, yet coming to different conclusions. That's the nature of inquiry. The systematic enterprise that we refer to as "science" is inductive in nature far more often than most adherents to scientism tend to realize. Even deductive conclusions are ultimately reached with nearly endless (and often unstated or unrealized) assumptions, and assumptions don't always turn out to be correct.
  - simonh 10y ago
    But science is about creating and using tests for those assumptions. That's the part of the process that makes it science, as against philosophy.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- CalChris 10y ago
  Disease is going a bit far. Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientism Or to put it another way, too much logical positivism. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientism http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
- devonkim 10y ago
  The worst part is that we see people attempting to refute good science with poor science because of almost entirely political reasons such as the fact we're still having debates on the mere existence of climate change and unsupported or entirely debunked fears of GMOs and nuclear power. Even worse, I don't think teaching science better in our schools will do anything to change this status quo due to the huge amounts of money poured into political agendas.
  - 10y ago
cloudjacker 10y ago
Yes, it is called Railroading. The prosecutors have a prewritten story and bus you through the system.
vacri 10y ago
> If two "experts" can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions, how is this science? Happens all the time in science. You might be thinking of engineering, where opinions vary much less.
pmarreck 10y ago
I share your outrage/fear, and I invite you to contribute to The Innocence Project like I do: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ http://www.innocenceproject.org/ They've already exonerated about 340 people, which likely amounts to many lifetimes of innocents' jail time avoided
- louithethrid 10y ago
  The real scary thing is the reason these people have to "fight" so hard even with all evidence against the fake evidence and incompetence on theire side. Jurys who fear the idea of having been fatally wrong more then they want too find out the truth. The idea that one could in his seemingly rightous wrath murdered someone innocent using a loaded state, seems so horrifying that more injustice has to be sunken into that fallacy. Agencys who fear to be held responsible for the costs of incarceration and incompetence, on which whole carreernetworks where errected upon. Finally a public, that all idealizations from the left and right, often consists of basically rage-foaming ill informed refusing the work-load of getting actually informed on a case. Also the well sortedness a universe has, where for everyting bad that happens, there is a culprit, a actual blame person. So much more comforting to sleep at night with having propability in jail, instead of accepting the dangers that beeing alive inherits.
  - dclowd9901 10y ago
    Easy to solve with accountability and its friend the chilling effect. Prosecutors should serve whatever wrongful time they put someone in jail for. I bet we would see wrongful convictions drop to zero.
    - mveety 10y ago
      But then prosecutors would be much less willing to take acceptable risk when called for because the punishments are so draconian. That being said, letting a dangerous criminal free is much better than having a single innocent incarcerated.
      - 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ihaveahadron 10y ago
If two "experts" can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions, how is this science? You just described the principle with 100% accuracy of exactly the opposite of what science is. Or, if that can happen, (two scientists doing the same thing but not getting the same result (singular)); then it is 100% undebatably NOT science. It's philosophy / idiocy / whatever. Also if you've never been payed to do, real, science; you aren't a scientist.
manachar 10y ago
The amount that money dictates outcome in matters of law should frighten us to the core.
ryuker16 10y ago
In defense of forensics, while not an exact science, accuracy increases when multiple forms of evidence lead to the same conclusion. For example.... Finger prints match, DNA matches, hair sample match.... Likelyhood of three experts being wrong is statisticly extremely low....
- 77pt77 10y ago
  Except those forms of evidence aren't independent. Contamination affects all of them and on top of that most of the people analysing them know the results of the other methods. It's a sham by design. Reminds me of personality tests in custody disputes. Everyone making the evaluation demands to know the results obtained so far. What a joke.
cstross 10y ago
Something I really don't understand about the American system (I'm British) is why anyone could possibly think it's a good idea to make Prosecutors and Judges elected offices! The whole "tough on crime" narrative is toxic when it plays into electoral politics because it gives prosecutors an incentive to pick fights they know they can win (targeting vulnerable people with limited resources to hire an effective defense) and it rewards judges for portraying themselves as the vengeful defenders of the wronged by imposing unduly harsh sentences. Seriously? Other countries do just fine with prosecutors and judges who are unelected civil servants, and don't seem to have quite the same track record of excessive victimization of the vulnerable.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- quesera 10y ago
  39 of 50 US states select judges by election. 43 states elect "attorneys general" which are generally internal state counsel but sometimes also heads of the state judiciary. Most states (counties therein) elect sheriffs, but the role of the sheriff's office varies greatly by state. Sometimes it's a purely administrative role. My point being: there are some pockets of sanity in the US. But I agree -- law enforcement should not be a political office. There might be some value to a putting candidates to a public vote though. If the alternative is an appointment by the state governor, the potential for less accountability exists.
- dismantlethesun 10y ago
  The idea is that by making the position directly elected, those who hold it will more closely reflect the views of the electorate. If it were an appointed or civil service position, then the position would only indirectly reflect current public opinion. Now more direct democracy will always marginalize minority stakeholders, and those with little resources, but if this trade off is worthwhile is debateable.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I mean, obviously it's a system with problems. But it's an attempt to deal with the problem that the state can use the justice system in an arbitrary way to punish people it wants to go after for different reasons.
revelation 10y ago
Even DNA is suspect, if not because the base science is junk but simply because keeping some semblance of an "evidence chain" requires much more care than is presently taken. German police was chasing the "phantom of Heilbronn" until it turned out that all the found DNA was actually of some laboratory assistant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn Just recently there was another highly dubious report of some DNA link between one high profile case and another: http://www.dw.com/en/thuringia-to-check-potential-neo-nazi-connection-in-second-child-murder/a-36041556 http://www.dw.com/en/thuringia-to-check-potential-neo-nazi-c...
- phire 10y ago
  Not even a laboratory assistant. It was a factory worker who manufactured the swabs that were used to collect the samples.
Gustomaximus 10y ago
> fingerprints are junk science? Really? The seem to be fairly reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint Also with the other, it seems to me they are not 'junk science'. More they are indicators, not absolutes. So people are using them incorrectly, not they shouldn't be used.
ryanmarsh 10y ago
This is one of my biggest fears about living in Texas. I've seen the justice system at work up close and it's just a mindless life crushing beast. Furthermore in many counties there's two prosecutors in the courtroom, meaning the republican "tough on crime" judge is no more than additional help for the prosecution.

by seibelj 10y ago

gohrt 10y ago

"Opinion" is a subjective judgment based on personal weighing of facts by priority and probability. We must rely on judges and juries and expert opinions to form opinions. This junk forensics is just "guessing" and "prejudice".

DINKDINK 10y ago

>If two "experts" can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions, how is this science? Scientism is a mental disease perpetuated by people who seek social persuasion through whatever means convinces a person/the public rather than objective epidemiologically derived truth. It's easier to appear smart by accepting dubious "science" than rebuking it with skepticism.

handedness 10y ago
What's more, the scientific field is full of (actual) experts looking at identical evidence, yet coming to different conclusions. That's the nature of inquiry. The systematic enterprise that we refer to as "science" is inductive in nature far more often than most adherents to scientism tend to realize. Even deductive conclusions are ultimately reached with nearly endless (and often unstated or unrealized) assumptions, and assumptions don't always turn out to be correct.
- simonh 10y ago
  But science is about creating and using tests for those assumptions. That's the part of the process that makes it science, as against philosophy.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
CalChris 10y ago
Disease is going a bit far. Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientism Or to put it another way, too much logical positivism. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientism http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
devonkim 10y ago
The worst part is that we see people attempting to refute good science with poor science because of almost entirely political reasons such as the fact we're still having debates on the mere existence of climate change and unsupported or entirely debunked fears of GMOs and nuclear power. Even worse, I don't think teaching science better in our schools will do anything to change this status quo due to the huge amounts of money poured into political agendas.
- 10y ago

cloudjacker 10y ago

Yes, it is called Railroading. The prosecutors have a prewritten story and bus you through the system.

vacri 10y ago

> If two "experts" can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions, how is this science? Happens all the time in science. You might be thinking of engineering, where opinions vary much less.

pmarreck 10y ago

I share your outrage/fear, and I invite you to contribute to The Innocence Project like I do: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ http://www.innocenceproject.org/ They've already exonerated about 340 people, which likely amounts to many lifetimes of innocents' jail time avoided

louithethrid 10y ago
The real scary thing is the reason these people have to "fight" so hard even with all evidence against the fake evidence and incompetence on theire side. Jurys who fear the idea of having been fatally wrong more then they want too find out the truth. The idea that one could in his seemingly rightous wrath murdered someone innocent using a loaded state, seems so horrifying that more injustice has to be sunken into that fallacy. Agencys who fear to be held responsible for the costs of incarceration and incompetence, on which whole carreernetworks where errected upon. Finally a public, that all idealizations from the left and right, often consists of basically rage-foaming ill informed refusing the work-load of getting actually informed on a case. Also the well sortedness a universe has, where for everyting bad that happens, there is a culprit, a actual blame person. So much more comforting to sleep at night with having propability in jail, instead of accepting the dangers that beeing alive inherits.
- dclowd9901 10y ago
  Easy to solve with accountability and its friend the chilling effect. Prosecutors should serve whatever wrongful time they put someone in jail for. I bet we would see wrongful convictions drop to zero.
  - mveety 10y ago
    But then prosecutors would be much less willing to take acceptable risk when called for because the punishments are so draconian. That being said, letting a dangerous criminal free is much better than having a single innocent incarcerated.
    - 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ihaveahadron 10y ago

If two "experts" can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions, how is this science? You just described the principle with 100% accuracy of exactly the opposite of what science is. Or, if that can happen, (two scientists doing the same thing but not getting the same result (singular)); then it is 100% undebatably NOT science. It's philosophy / idiocy / whatever. Also if you've never been payed to do, real, science; you aren't a scientist.

manachar 10y ago

The amount that money dictates outcome in matters of law should frighten us to the core.

ryuker16 10y ago

In defense of forensics, while not an exact science, accuracy increases when multiple forms of evidence lead to the same conclusion. For example.... Finger prints match, DNA matches, hair sample match.... Likelyhood of three experts being wrong is statisticly extremely low....

77pt77 10y ago
Except those forms of evidence aren't independent. Contamination affects all of them and on top of that most of the people analysing them know the results of the other methods. It's a sham by design. Reminds me of personality tests in custody disputes. Everyone making the evaluation demands to know the results obtained so far. What a joke.

cstross 10y ago

Something I really don't understand about the American system (I'm British) is why anyone could possibly think it's a good idea to make Prosecutors and Judges elected offices! The whole "tough on crime" narrative is toxic when it plays into electoral politics because it gives prosecutors an incentive to pick fights they know they can win (targeting vulnerable people with limited resources to hire an effective defense) and it rewards judges for portraying themselves as the vengeful defenders of the wronged by imposing unduly harsh sentences. Seriously? Other countries do just fine with prosecutors and judges who are unelected civil servants, and don't seem to have quite the same track record of excessive victimization of the vulnerable.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
quesera 10y ago
39 of 50 US states select judges by election. 43 states elect "attorneys general" which are generally internal state counsel but sometimes also heads of the state judiciary. Most states (counties therein) elect sheriffs, but the role of the sheriff's office varies greatly by state. Sometimes it's a purely administrative role. My point being: there are some pockets of sanity in the US. But I agree -- law enforcement should not be a political office. There might be some value to a putting candidates to a public vote though. If the alternative is an appointment by the state governor, the potential for less accountability exists.
dismantlethesun 10y ago
The idea is that by making the position directly elected, those who hold it will more closely reflect the views of the electorate. If it were an appointed or civil service position, then the position would only indirectly reflect current public opinion. Now more direct democracy will always marginalize minority stakeholders, and those with little resources, but if this trade off is worthwhile is debateable.
emodendroket 10y ago
I mean, obviously it's a system with problems. But it's an attempt to deal with the problem that the state can use the justice system in an arbitrary way to punish people it wants to go after for different reasons.

revelation 10y ago

Even DNA is suspect, if not because the base science is junk but simply because keeping some semblance of an "evidence chain" requires much more care than is presently taken. German police was chasing the "phantom of Heilbronn" until it turned out that all the found DNA was actually of some laboratory assistant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn Just recently there was another highly dubious report of some DNA link between one high profile case and another: http://www.dw.com/en/thuringia-to-check-potential-neo-nazi-connection-in-second-child-murder/a-36041556 http://www.dw.com/en/thuringia-to-check-potential-neo-nazi-c...

phire 10y ago
Not even a laboratory assistant. It was a factory worker who manufactured the swabs that were used to collect the samples.

Gustomaximus 10y ago

> fingerprints are junk science? Really? The seem to be fairly reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint Also with the other, it seems to me they are not 'junk science'. More they are indicators, not absolutes. So people are using them incorrectly, not they shouldn't be used.

ryanmarsh 10y ago

This is one of my biggest fears about living in Texas. I've seen the justice system at work up close and it's just a mindless life crushing beast. Furthermore in many counties there's two prosecutors in the courtroom, meaning the republican "tough on crime" judge is no more than additional help for the prosecution.