10 ms·
US dismantles forensic science commission
- finid 10y agoThe commission will be replaced with an internal forensics expert(s), so out goes independent scientific oversight of an arm of the govt. that touts so much science.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- elastic_church 10y agoInteresting choice of things to trim, I'd like no more public resources being used on the FCPA, insider trading, and "material misrepresentations", as these all seem to have disproportionate costs than effect. Who should I tweet?
- InclinedPlane 10y agoFCPA? Seriously? That's a revenue stream for the government.
- elastic_church 10y agoyo dawg, I heard you like kickbacks, so give us a kickback because you gave someone else a kickback, so we can kickback and relax I'd prefer if our government did not engage in this practice
- scarmig 10y agoWonderful! It's a twofer: the Trump administration gets to attack both scientists and accused innocents. Sessions is due for a big pat on the back for this one.
- tossaway322 10y agoThis is a shame. Next the FBI will be bringing charges based upon the use of crystal balls, hair samples, spirit photography, and talking goats. All scientifically validated by the NBS and DOD undoubtedly.
- StillBored 10y agoOr heavy metal posters... This is just the national version of what happened in Texas with regard to Todd Willingham. The forensic review committee was disband for fear that they would publicly validate what was becoming clearer by the day. Basically, that Texas likely executed an innocent man based on gut instinct forensic evidence, and the well known fact that people into heavy metal were satanists that kill their children. Of course SOP for a Republican in Texas in this situation is kill the messenger and deny the message.
- aanm1988 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham#Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham#Fire > During the penalty phase of the trial, a prosecutor said that Willingham's tattoo of a skull and serpent fit the profile of a sociopath. Two medical experts confirmed the theory. A psychologist was asked to interpret Willingham's Iron Maiden poster, and said that a picture of a fist punching through a skull signified violence and death. He added that Willingham's Led Zeppelin poster of a fallen angel was "many times" an indicator of "cultive-type" activities What the fuck. wow.
- defined 10y agoWait, where was the phrenologist's testimony? /s
- rochellle 10y agoReading through it, the entire law enforcement power structure seems to have formed an opinion that this was criminally negligent parenting and that they were going to find a way to throw the book at the guy no matter what. They noticed that he saved his own neck, rather than sacrifice everything, and did not risk his own life for his 3 children (infants/toddler). Thus, they fed him to the lions. It wasn't enough for him to have suffered burns. Their opinion clearly was that if those children were dead, then he can get it too. After that, the rest was the machine operating as usual. They didn't convict him of a crime as per what happened. They convicted him of the crime on the books that had the punishment that fit the situation and their collective opinion of it. They wanted him dead, not because of heavy metal, or any other reason on display at the dog and pony show, theater trial. They wanted him dead because they felt that it was unreasonable that 3 children (who probably weren't old enough to walk and talk too well) could not be rescued in time, by the only person taking care of them at the moment. Part of the expectation there, is that he should have been steps away, and within arms reach of them. They threw due process in the trash because they just didn't like what happened.
- finid 10y ago“The availability of prompt and accurate forensic science analysis to our law enforcement officers and prosecutors is critical to integrity in law enforcement, reducing violent crime, and increasing public safety,” Sessions said in the statement. “We applaud the professionalism of the National Commission on Forensic Science and look forward to building on the contributions it has made in this crucial field.” "applaud and destroy."
- pizza 10y agoLooked at his Wikipedia page to brush up on our Attorney General.. Also Jeff Sessions: "On October 5, 2005, Sessions was one of nine Senators who voted against a Senate amendment to a House bill that prohibited cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government" "Sessions has been a strong supporter of civil forfeiture, the government practice of seizing property when it has allegedly been involved in a crime. Sessions opposes "any reform" of civil forfeiture legislation." Incredible.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions#Crime_and_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions#Crime_and_securi...
- aanm1988 10y agoHe was also too racist to be confirmed as a judge in the 80s. There is a nice letter from MLK's widow about him. Although, why would you need to have a law against cruel/inhumane treatment? Isn't that already part of the bill of rights?
- count 10y agoBill of Rights only applies to US Citizens in the US.
- jude- 10y agoNope, it applies to every person within the US. The Bill of Rights does not even contain the word "citizen." Moreover, the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times [1] that every person in the US--illegally or not--is entitled to due process. [1] http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes...
- count 10y agoSorry, 'in the US' is the key part, more so than 'US Citizens'. The bill was to protect detainees and 3rd party nationals in foreign areas (read: black prisons overseas).
- Gracana 10y ago> Sessions will end a Justice Department partnership with independent scientists to raise forensic science standards Well, shit. When I saw the headline I grasped for a thread of hope that maybe this meant a blow to the terrible and corrupt forensic science industry. Nope, this is a step back towards the status quo. I should know better than to be optimistic.
- greggman 10y agohere's a Frontline about how nearly all "forensic science" is not actually backed by science http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/real-csi/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/real-csi/
- Oxitendwe 10y agoThis was only established 4 years ago. It's not a big deal.
- wfo 10y agoYes, established recently to deal with an enormous crisis of failures in forensic science that were putting innocent people in jail in huge numbers across the country. The FBI crime lab was essentially doing junk science and sending expert technicians to testify and say "The astrological sign of the defendant that I've described in technical scientific terms you don't understand tells us he was at the crime scene with 99.99% accuracy, trust me, I'm a senior scientist at the FBI crime lab." It's a huge deal if you're accused of a crime or if you care about innocent people going free.
- DanBC 10y agoand it's wider than criminal justice, some of these tests are used in family cases too. Here's a blog post from England about hair strand analysis for substance misuse: http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/hair-strand-testing-some-interesting-information/ http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/hair-strand-testing-some-int...
- hackuser 10y agoI don't think its lifespan indicates its importance. Without it, it seems possible or even very likely that more innocent people will be have their reputations ruined and be imprisoned, with all the follow on effects on their families and communities. Also, as an unavoidable result, the perpetrators of those crimes will go free. How is that not important?
- pyrophane 10y agoWell, this administration clearly doesn't want anyone within the executive branch to have the ability, vis a vis independence, to contradict their agenda, on any level. The result is that anyone empowered to do research will answer to them directly, and anything don't like will never see the light of day, if it is even brought up in the first place (because, of course, this is also an administration that only wants to confirmation of their policies). So, essentially, we can expect only more of this. Quasi-indepenent commissions will be replaced by groups we never hear from, unless they have something to say that backs up an administration policy. It'll be a rough four years for policy.
- microcolonel 10y agoThis is what "public funding for research" means. If we didn't want politics to affect research, we shouldn't have sold it to politicians.
- rl3 10y agoThat's a good point. Why does the government directly fund scientific research? A better system might be to spin off private, non-profit entities and inject them with massive amounts of cash—enough to weather stormy political climates.
- microcolonel 10y agoThat would be interesting, though I fear that system would suffer the same problems. It could be corrupted by a desire to receive ongoing funding (either the individual researchers, or the organization). Physics research is an example of something which is hard to corrupt politically. However, because government is at least somewhat in charge of so many things today, fields like medicine, mental health, anthropology, even geology can become political. Then there are the obvious things like matters relating to guns, where the government has a clear interest in "proving" that the public shouldn't have guns, which is one of the CDC was barred from doing research related to this. If I recall correctly, one of the researchers employed by the CDC was recorded insinuating that his team would manipulate the observations to reach a foregone conclusion. The other obvious one is the relationship between government research, lobbying (official and unofficial), and regulatory bodies. I do get why it is attractive to fund research with government money, however. It can often seem like there just isn't enough money in research, and indeed there isn't much; but if your research dollar is spent on corrupt research then it may be worse than nothing. By relying on private money, the special interests can be diversified automatically, which seems more healthy to my mind.
- colmvp 10y agoIt just continues a long line of anti-science measures by the administration. Proposing to cut funding to the EPA, the Energy Department, NASA, National Institute of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration... And then there's the nomination of climate change denier Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA. Not to mention the dozens of science and technology positions in the administrations that are yet to be filled.
- bingomad123 10y agoEPA or Energy department are stamp collecting and not science. NASA directly advances our knowledge of the universe here as EPA or Energy Department are more like regulatory bodies whose objective is to figure out arguments for increasing taxes. I would rather see the money going to NASA or the public universities directly instead of it going to EPA of all agencies.
- omegaworks 10y agoRight, yeah, these should just sit and be managed by no one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites
- 467568985476 10y agoYou say that like regulations are inherently bad. I can assure you that the industrial firms are not pricing negative externalities into their products unless the government forces them to.
- saboot 10y agoI do work supported by the DOE, it's science work, you don't know what you are taking about. Go look at the web pages of the many national labs, almost all operated by the DOE.
- colmvp 10y agoThe EPA is concerned with regulating air and water quality, and the immediate impact of burning fossil fuels. Air pollution from fossil fuels has a profound impact on American lives. Whether or not they do research is irrelevant. Neutering their ability to enforce standards clearly shows the administration doesn't acknowledge the realities that affect the country and the world. By diminishing the power of the EPA, alongside Trump's executive order that attempts to reduce/reverse the broad set of climate and clean energy initiatives from the Obama Administration (Clean Power Plan), the U.S. may continue to lose the leadership in the clean energy economy and adherence to climate change goals. Furthermore, given Pruit's anti-EPA philosophy, we could easily see him push the body to revise the Clean Power Plan in a way that would benefit the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the environment and the long term health of Americans.
- a3n 10y ago#MAIA
- arise 10y agoI for one will be taking this into account should I find myself in the jury box. The bad thing is, eyewitness testimony is even worse. And police testimony has a bruised record too. Both sides hire experts to say what they want. I guess video footage is the only thing left to provide objective evidence of a crime scene. :\
- tn135 10y agoWhile I am all for reducing the size of the government this is bad move. This has less to do with science and more to do with overzealous Jeff Sessions. Good science often helps find the right guy and stop preventing wrongful convictions. Over last few decades advancements in DNA testing etc. have helped several innocent people from being prosecuted wrongly. This is a step in a reverse direction for criminal justice reforms in USA (though totally expected from Jess Sessions). Rant: I think we as a people are to be blamed here. We are the ones who have often failed to stand up for the rights of the people who are prosecuted. We buy the government's propaganda of partitioning society as "those bad guys" and "we good guys" and then let government treat the former as total shit. Trump has won election using those kind of tactics.
- swiley 10y agoWasn't there recently discovered some hundreds of potentially innocent people in either death row or prison due to flawed DNA tests?
- kchoudhu 10y agoIs anyone keeping track of what damage will have to be undone when Trump finally leaves office and is replaced by someone more reasonable?
- defined 10y agoI think even the knock-on effects will be incalculable after 4 years.
- awqrre 10y agoTrump is toxic but at least he exposes similar people.