5 ms·
Courts are shockingly slow to adopt the conclusions of science, especially when such conclusions would have wide-ranging exclusionary effects on rules of eviden
by spacemanmatt 5y ago
Courts are shockingly slow to adopt the conclusions of science, especially when such conclusions would have wide-ranging exclusionary effects on rules of evidence.
For more background, search for scandals related to FBI "bite mark" experts or disgraced former Texas detective Tom Coleman.
- LanceH 5y agoCourts work on procedure and appeal to authority, not science. Hopefully there is an overlap, but it's not required. Diligent application of appeal to authority by the more well funded party results in better outcomes.
- spacemanmatt 5y agoScience basically has to enter courts through consensus, which means only the most sensational and visible conclusions of science will reach the legal system. Seems like a bit of a bottleneck for a developing civilization.
- elliekelly 5y agoAnd shockingly slow to accept that the pseudoscience they’ve been allowing is bunk. See, e.g., shaken baby syndrome, and fire burn patterns supposedly indicative of arson. Heck, we’ve even know for years that breathalyzers are crazy unreliable and yet we constantly convict people based on the reading.