5 ms·

There is also the problem of multiple comparisons when they check DNA against a database the probability of randomly finding a match goes up.

• leephillips 9y ago
  It's one version of the epidemiological fallacy. My impression, which may be wishful thinking, is that prosecutors are better educated about these things now and that this kind of thing is less common.
  • barrkel 9y ago
    AFAIK prosecutors are motivated by convictions, not justice.
    • leephillips 9y ago
      I've heard plenty of anecdotes that suggest that this is true of many prosecutors, but other anecdotes showing that there are also good ones out there.
      • rayiner 9y ago
        Viewing it "good ones" versus "bad ones" terms is misleading. Prosecutors work in situations where (1) they constantly view the worst aspects of society; (2) the bulk of their job involves people who are obviously guilty.[1] There's some prosecutors who are just downright unethical. But for the most part, within the model of "better to let X guilty people go free than to put Y innocent people in prison," prosecutors are people who select different numbers for X and Y than other people. I think juries should be clearly educated on the limitations of DNA testing, and other kinds of forensic evidence should be banned. Then again, I recognize that for every person unjustly convicted based on lab error, there are a dozen who just want to throw that possibility out there hoping to confuse the jury enough to get an acquittal. [1] Courtrooms are open to the public, and I'd encourage everyone to go to your local federal courthouse and sit in on a dozen sentencing proceedings.