3 ms·

The hands-off reputation-based approach isn't enough to regulate food and drugs, or aviation. I don't see why for-profit forensics companies should be trusted i

The hands-off reputation-based approach isn't enough to regulate food and drugs, or aviation. I don't see why for-profit forensics companies should be trusted implicitly. Also related: we know that funding bias [0] is a real problem in science, despite that scientists' reputations should (ideally) motivate them to resist such biases. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias

kortilla 6y ago
No, the question is what is the incentive for lying and claiming guilty? Do prosecutors choose different labs?
- geocar 6y ago
  If you knew someone was guilty, because of a preponderance of other evidence you have the utmost faith in, such as a professional law enforcement officers’ eyewitness account, and the DNA testing vendor you were evaluating said “not guilty”, what exactly would you expect to happen?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    That the eyewitness account would be discarded, they make for terrible evidence anyway.
    - tekromancr 6y ago
      I think it is REALLY hard to overstate how dangerously naive a view of the american justice system that is
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        I don't understand what you mean. I would expect them to make the obviously correct decision, though I'm fully aware that they very often don't.
        tsimionescu 6y ago
        It depends on the definition of 'expect'. You should expect it of them, as in consider it unethical if they don't. You shouldn't expect them to live up to this standard, as in, if you were to bet on it, you'd likely lose.
- pelliphant 6y ago
  That seems plausible. I would argue that if prosecutors and/or cops get to pick the tool, false positives would result in more sales. Just as false negatives would result in more sales if the defendant gets to make the pick.
  - thgaway17 6y ago
    false positives would result in more sales. That seems highly unlikely. Prosecutors, like all attorneys, talk. It wouldn’t take too many getting burned by a false positive before word would get out (regardless of any nda). For example, once an expert gets Dauberted, you’ve got to think long and hard about being the next guy to use them.
    - pelliphant 6y ago
      But how would one actually know if a result is a false positive or not? Sure, in extreme cases it might be obvious, but if you just know that one test gives more matches than another, not knowing which one is the one giving false results?
    - merpnderp 6y ago
      But genetic evidence is often enough to convict by itself. A false positive is far more likely to land a conviction than an embarrassment to the prosecutor. I mean we live in a world where DNA evidence will easily override solid alibis.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - 6510 6y ago
      A product that doesn't work wouldn't be considered.
- buttercraft 6y ago
  Paying investigators per conviction is a sure way to create incentive.
  - Eric_WVGG 6y ago
    Exactly. "Product X caught 25% more bad guys than Product Y" this stuff just writes itself. Policing is driven by numbers. There was a whole season of The Wire about this.
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  Of course prosecutors will favour expert witnesses that will help them get convictions. Why isn’t that obvious?
  - bardworx 6y ago
    Ok, maybe I’m naive, but why is that obvious? Not arguing just trying to understand. My rationale is: prosecutors have to weigh an “easy” conviction vs the possibility that labs that always guarantee results may be biased. In the event that they get caught up with a biased lab, wouldn’t it look bad for their reputation? As in, they can’t even perform due diligence on their sources, how can you trust them in a promoted role? Or am I just naive on how the legal system works?
    - the_local_host 6y ago
      I think you're underestimating the usefulness of scapegoats. If biased results exist, a lot of people look more effective. If such a bias is discovered, only a subset of those people will be blamed.
    - benlivengood 6y ago
      > In the event that they get caught up with a biased lab, wouldn’t it look bad for their reputation? As in, they can’t even perform due diligence on their sources, how can you trust them in a promoted role? I am not a lawyer but as I understand the U.S. criminal justice system (which is adversarial between defense and prosecution with the judge officiating and the jury picking the winner) prosecutors are not experts in particular technical fields which is why courts allow expert witnesses. The defense is responsible for calling their own experts who can dispute other biased witnesses. If no one successfully disputes an expert witness over time the prosecutor's trust in them is very likely to grow. A prosecutor will always claim they did due diligence by selecting a reputable expert witness up until it's proven that the witness was not in fact reliable, but claim (likely in good faith) that they had no way of knowing the expert witness was biased. A better solution might be to mandate that expert witnesses get independently tested but again that's something a defense council could facilitate and bring into evidence. If no defense team finds it valuable to do this kind of work then it's unlikely a prosecutor will see it as useful either. Lack of challenges implies that the evidence is more or less indisputable from a legal perspective.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Yes, yes they do. Prosecutors often campaign on being “tough on crime”, and even judges (where elected) are known to sentence more harshly during election season. The ability for an expert witness to deliver more convictions, even if by lying, is a feature for prosecutors, not a bug.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  You're a prosecutor. Your goal is to get convictions. You are objectively graded largely on your ability to secure convictions. Every incentive you have leads you to preferring convictions. You have a choice between two labs to hire for your field test. Lab A and Lab B. Lab A gives you conclusive evidence leading to a conviction 95% of the time. Lab B gives you conclusive evidence leading to a conviction 65% of the time. Price and speed are roughly comparable between the labs. Which lab do you select? --- You are now a lab director. You are under pressure to improve the sales of the lab's forensic services. You have pretty much maxed out making changes to improve price and speed, and have been matched by other labs. You understand very well the decision making process prosecutors will use to hire your lab. --- The incentives clearly lead prosecutors to pursuing labs that deliver better results. Labs know this, and so are under market pressure to delivery convictions for prosecutors.

kortilla 6y ago

No, the question is what is the incentive for lying and claiming guilty? Do prosecutors choose different labs?

geocar 6y ago
If you knew someone was guilty, because of a preponderance of other evidence you have the utmost faith in, such as a professional law enforcement officers’ eyewitness account, and the DNA testing vendor you were evaluating said “not guilty”, what exactly would you expect to happen?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  That the eyewitness account would be discarded, they make for terrible evidence anyway.
  - tekromancr 6y ago
    I think it is REALLY hard to overstate how dangerously naive a view of the american justice system that is
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      I don't understand what you mean. I would expect them to make the obviously correct decision, though I'm fully aware that they very often don't.
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        It depends on the definition of 'expect'. You should expect it of them, as in consider it unethical if they don't. You shouldn't expect them to live up to this standard, as in, if you were to bet on it, you'd likely lose.
pelliphant 6y ago
That seems plausible. I would argue that if prosecutors and/or cops get to pick the tool, false positives would result in more sales. Just as false negatives would result in more sales if the defendant gets to make the pick.
- thgaway17 6y ago
  false positives would result in more sales. That seems highly unlikely. Prosecutors, like all attorneys, talk. It wouldn’t take too many getting burned by a false positive before word would get out (regardless of any nda). For example, once an expert gets Dauberted, you’ve got to think long and hard about being the next guy to use them.
  - pelliphant 6y ago
    But how would one actually know if a result is a false positive or not? Sure, in extreme cases it might be obvious, but if you just know that one test gives more matches than another, not knowing which one is the one giving false results?
  - merpnderp 6y ago
    But genetic evidence is often enough to convict by itself. A false positive is far more likely to land a conviction than an embarrassment to the prosecutor. I mean we live in a world where DNA evidence will easily override solid alibis.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6510 6y ago
    A product that doesn't work wouldn't be considered.
buttercraft 6y ago
Paying investigators per conviction is a sure way to create incentive.
- Eric_WVGG 6y ago
  Exactly. "Product X caught 25% more bad guys than Product Y" this stuff just writes itself. Policing is driven by numbers. There was a whole season of The Wire about this.
Ma8ee 6y ago
Of course prosecutors will favour expert witnesses that will help them get convictions. Why isn’t that obvious?
- bardworx 6y ago
  Ok, maybe I’m naive, but why is that obvious? Not arguing just trying to understand. My rationale is: prosecutors have to weigh an “easy” conviction vs the possibility that labs that always guarantee results may be biased. In the event that they get caught up with a biased lab, wouldn’t it look bad for their reputation? As in, they can’t even perform due diligence on their sources, how can you trust them in a promoted role? Or am I just naive on how the legal system works?
  - the_local_host 6y ago
    I think you're underestimating the usefulness of scapegoats. If biased results exist, a lot of people look more effective. If such a bias is discovered, only a subset of those people will be blamed.
  - benlivengood 6y ago
    > In the event that they get caught up with a biased lab, wouldn’t it look bad for their reputation? As in, they can’t even perform due diligence on their sources, how can you trust them in a promoted role? I am not a lawyer but as I understand the U.S. criminal justice system (which is adversarial between defense and prosecution with the judge officiating and the jury picking the winner) prosecutors are not experts in particular technical fields which is why courts allow expert witnesses. The defense is responsible for calling their own experts who can dispute other biased witnesses. If no one successfully disputes an expert witness over time the prosecutor's trust in them is very likely to grow. A prosecutor will always claim they did due diligence by selecting a reputable expert witness up until it's proven that the witness was not in fact reliable, but claim (likely in good faith) that they had no way of knowing the expert witness was biased. A better solution might be to mandate that expert witnesses get independently tested but again that's something a defense council could facilitate and bring into evidence. If no defense team finds it valuable to do this kind of work then it's unlikely a prosecutor will see it as useful either. Lack of challenges implies that the evidence is more or less indisputable from a legal perspective.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Yes, yes they do. Prosecutors often campaign on being “tough on crime”, and even judges (where elected) are known to sentence more harshly during election season. The ability for an expert witness to deliver more convictions, even if by lying, is a feature for prosecutors, not a bug.
ncallaway 6y ago
You're a prosecutor. Your goal is to get convictions. You are objectively graded largely on your ability to secure convictions. Every incentive you have leads you to preferring convictions. You have a choice between two labs to hire for your field test. Lab A and Lab B. Lab A gives you conclusive evidence leading to a conviction 95% of the time. Lab B gives you conclusive evidence leading to a conviction 65% of the time. Price and speed are roughly comparable between the labs. Which lab do you select? --- You are now a lab director. You are under pressure to improve the sales of the lab's forensic services. You have pretty much maxed out making changes to improve price and speed, and have been matched by other labs. You understand very well the decision making process prosecutors will use to hire your lab. --- The incentives clearly lead prosecutors to pursuing labs that deliver better results. Labs know this, and so are under market pressure to delivery convictions for prosecutors.