4 ms·

I think its things like hair analysis, bite mark matching even fingerprint matching.

by plopz 8y ago

heyyyouu 8y ago
Actually it's turning out that arson detectives are on the level of hair and bite mark analysts -- completely and utterly made up.
maxxxxx 8y ago
If you have enough money to pay for experts to shoot this nonsense down you are fine but if you don't have the money you are in serious trouble. Some years ago I was part of a jury in a trial about assault with a deadly weapon . The prosecution had an expert witness who talked about lighting conditions during sunset. I do a lot of photography so I know about little about this topic myself. I thought to myself "WTF is this guy talking about? This is plain wrong". But as jury member you can speak up only during deliberation and the defendant was a poor guy whose lawyer didn't challenge this nonsense. Thank God the case was so flimsy that we voted "Not guilty" anyway but it's really easy to get convicted based on junk science. Unless you have the money to challenge that.
- DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
  It's a travesty that juries don't have a voice in a trial. It benefits no-one.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    That's more like a lay judge system.
  - User23 8y ago
    They do. It's called a verdict.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    having the jury ask questions can really only hurt the defendant. if a juror is so confused that they feel the need to ask a question, they should just count that point towards "reasonable doubt" and move on.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      In the (not at all unusual) event of incompetent counsel, jurors asking clarifying questions might draw out important information.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Cross examination of an expert is pretty important. Judges and juries are not supposed to allow fringe opinions as experts and even the best experts may hold non-consensus positions on some matters. The fix for that system would be a "Mechanical Turk" of an expert and taking the majority vote or, if there's no consensus, dropping the matter. The important part here would be complete blinding of each expert. Wait, that sounds like an expert jury. :)
emodendroket 8y ago
Arson analysis is definitely in there too. He's right about that. There was a PBS documentary and they were talking about how the investigators would be taking nonsense about "feeling the fire" and they convicted an innocent man of killing his entire family.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  This was the documentary I was thinking of: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/

I think its things like hair analysis, bite mark matching even fingerprint matching.

by plopz 8y ago

I think its things like hair analysis, bite mark matching even fingerprint matching.

Actually it's turning out that arson detectives are on the level of hair and bite mark analysts -- completely and utterly made up.

maxxxxx 8y ago

If you have enough money to pay for experts to shoot this nonsense down you are fine but if you don't have the money you are in serious trouble. Some years ago I was part of a jury in a trial about assault with a deadly weapon . The prosecution had an expert witness who talked about lighting conditions during sunset. I do a lot of photography so I know about little about this topic myself. I thought to myself "WTF is this guy talking about? This is plain wrong". But as jury member you can speak up only during deliberation and the defendant was a poor guy whose lawyer didn't challenge this nonsense. Thank God the case was so flimsy that we voted "Not guilty" anyway but it's really easy to get convicted based on junk science. Unless you have the money to challenge that.

DaiPlusPlus 8y ago
It's a travesty that juries don't have a voice in a trial. It benefits no-one.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  That's more like a lay judge system.
- User23 8y ago
  They do. It's called a verdict.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  having the jury ask questions can really only hurt the defendant. if a juror is so confused that they feel the need to ask a question, they should just count that point towards "reasonable doubt" and move on.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    In the (not at all unusual) event of incompetent counsel, jurors asking clarifying questions might draw out important information.
AstralStorm 8y ago
Cross examination of an expert is pretty important. Judges and juries are not supposed to allow fringe opinions as experts and even the best experts may hold non-consensus positions on some matters. The fix for that system would be a "Mechanical Turk" of an expert and taking the majority vote or, if there's no consensus, dropping the matter. The important part here would be complete blinding of each expert. Wait, that sounds like an expert jury. :)

emodendroket 8y ago

Arson analysis is definitely in there too. He's right about that. There was a PBS documentary and they were talking about how the investigators would be taking nonsense about "feeling the fire" and they convicted an innocent man of killing his entire family.

emodendroket 8y ago
This was the documentary I was thinking of: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/