3 ms·
it’s always harder to change the status quo when the average citizen doesn’t know about the practice and isn’t directly hurt by it (concentrated costs, diverse
by thephyber 7y ago
it’s always harder to change the status quo when the average citizen doesn’t know about the practice and isn’t directly hurt by it (concentrated costs, diverse benefits).
Also, I think the police in the USA right now are FAR more professional than they were when this guy was born. They literally didn’t use fingerprints or most kinds of forensic evidence. It was largely about picking up the person that most tweaked your spidey-sense and trying to work backwards from there. Today we have FAR more traceability of chain of evidence and documentation of actions by individual officers than ever before. I’m not apologizing for officers or bad policy, I just want to give credit where I think not enough is given.
- etripe 7y ago> didn't use fingerprints It might still be a bad idea. I don't know what has changed since, but this source (0) says fingerprinting hasn't been subjected to scientific review. [0] : https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.h...
- nullc 7y agoA lot of forensic science is borderline or outright pseudoscience. Genetic testing with a FP rate worse than photo comparisons... Whats the ROC of the fingerprint comparison? Oops 'experts' working on comparing fingerprints haven't ever heard of a ROC. The reason much of it works at all is because it gets applied primarily where there is a lot of other extremely traditional evidence (witnesses, motive, etc.). Overconfidence in science-theater investigations have been resulting in more calls for dragnet operations, which would have extremely bad results.