4 ms·

Bad execution can and should be improved upon. Bad science (eg, matching bullets to guns) needs to be thrown onto the trash heap of history. The former can be

Bad execution can and should be improved upon. Bad science (eg, matching bullets to guns) needs to be thrown onto the trash heap of history. The former can be debunked on a case by case basis. The latter needs to be categorically banned from judicial proceedings.

koolba 9y ago
Are you saying that ballistic fingerprinting is entirely bullshit?
- bmelton 9y ago
  I don't know if that's what OP is saying, but it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary. The states who pioneered its adoption (New York and Maryland) have both abandoned it for being costly and ineffective. The FBI has abandoned comparative bullet lead analysis for similar reasons[1]. The National Academy of Sciences found the tests to be "full of holes", and that not enough study was being done to ensure its reliability, which was a finding that the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Obama concurred with. The general consensus now seems to be this[2]: > An understanding of the metallurgical principles operative in the melting/casting process as well as the data acquired for this study, indicate that any forensic conclusions which associate unknown bullets with the “same source”, and/or “same box” should fail most or all Daubert criteria. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073802001184?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907380...
  - NutriSugar 9y ago
    >it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary. Doesn't this also apply to eyewitness testimony, if not many other forms of evidence?
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      Yes, ballistic fingerprinting was just brought up as an example.
- astura 9y ago
  There is some very serious issues with it, so many issues it can't be considered scientific, at least not yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_firearm_examination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_firearm_examination >Further criticism came from the 2009 NAS report on the current state of various forensic fields in the United States. The report's section on firearm examination focused on the lack of defined requirements that are necessary in order to determine "matches" between known and unknown striations. The NAS stated that, "sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods."[23]:154 Without defined procedures on what is and what isn't considered "sufficient agreement" the report states that forensic firearm examination contains fundamental problems that need to be addressed by the forensic community through a set of repeatable scientific studies that outline standard operating procedures that should be adopted by all firearm examiners.[23]:155 Another report issued in 2016 by the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology confirmed the NAS's findings, finding only one appropriately designed study that examined the rate of false positives and reliability amongst firearm examiners.[40]

koolba 9y ago

Are you saying that ballistic fingerprinting is entirely bullshit?

bmelton 9y ago
I don't know if that's what OP is saying, but it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary. The states who pioneered its adoption (New York and Maryland) have both abandoned it for being costly and ineffective. The FBI has abandoned comparative bullet lead analysis for similar reasons[1]. The National Academy of Sciences found the tests to be "full of holes", and that not enough study was being done to ensure its reliability, which was a finding that the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Obama concurred with. The general consensus now seems to be this[2]: > An understanding of the metallurgical principles operative in the melting/casting process as well as the data acquired for this study, indicate that any forensic conclusions which associate unknown bullets with the “same source”, and/or “same box” should fail most or all Daubert criteria. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073802001184?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907380...
- NutriSugar 9y ago
  >it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary. Doesn't this also apply to eyewitness testimony, if not many other forms of evidence?
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    Yes, ballistic fingerprinting was just brought up as an example.
astura 9y ago
There is some very serious issues with it, so many issues it can't be considered scientific, at least not yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_firearm_examination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_firearm_examination >Further criticism came from the 2009 NAS report on the current state of various forensic fields in the United States. The report's section on firearm examination focused on the lack of defined requirements that are necessary in order to determine "matches" between known and unknown striations. The NAS stated that, "sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods."[23]:154 Without defined procedures on what is and what isn't considered "sufficient agreement" the report states that forensic firearm examination contains fundamental problems that need to be addressed by the forensic community through a set of repeatable scientific studies that outline standard operating procedures that should be adopted by all firearm examiners.[23]:155 Another report issued in 2016 by the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology confirmed the NAS's findings, finding only one appropriately designed study that examined the rate of false positives and reliability amongst firearm examiners.[40]