4 ms·

You'd be surprised. a) Drug recognition experts -- commented that on a sibling comment too -- identifying drug usage vs e.g. trauma by sight. b) blood alcohol

You'd be surprised. a) Drug recognition experts -- commented that on a sibling comment too -- identifying drug usage vs e.g. trauma by sight. b) blood alcohol levels imply alcohol consumption -- you could actually be walking around with elevated alcohol levels not realizing it due to liver issues+yeast biome/diabetes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513346/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513346/) c) uniqueness of fingerprints -- studies pointing always this is a statistical argument not a unique identifier -- https://www.aaas.org/resources/latent-fingerprint-examination https://www.aaas.org/resources/latent-fingerprint-examinatio... d) partial DNA match implying perfect match -- partial matches have been used to convict people e) probably every depiction of mental illness -- there are exceptions but can't say Hollywood does its best there f) lawyer interaction -- no your lawyer can't just barge in: you have to ask specifically and probably persist on needing a lawyer to consider any further interaction. (And even how you word that is a minefield in the U.S.) g) talking to the police -- somehow invoking the fifth is something only bad guys do -- it is the other way around. And that is causing issues already. h) DNA, fingerprints imply you were there. No material can be moved around. And police knows that. (And of course substances too, e.g. you were in a tax/uber after someone exposed to X, you are now exposed to X.) i) pretty much all of statistics -- this case one would have hoped would be the eye opener (https://forensicstats.org/blog/2018/02/16/misuse-statistics-courtroom-sally-clark-case/ https://forensicstats.org/blog/2018/02/16/misuse-statistics-...) P.S. j) ... science honestly? I am always dumbfounded with how much lack of basic scientific knowledge plagues courts and in extend society. Courts can not survive with uncertainty: they have to make decisions and stick to them. Science is different.

tinalumfoil 4y ago
A lot of these problems come from deference to experts who wear the hat of science. For instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Adams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Adams a man was convicted because an expert said the DNA gave 1 in 200 million chance of incorrect match (or something similar), which is incorrect. I don't remember enough details to look it up, but I recall a US case where the prosecution repeatedly used an expert with a history of lying on stand and of course people wrongly spent time in jail for that. I think a bigger issue here, at least in the US, is prosecutions seems to have a really easy time finding experts, often on the same payroll as the prosecution, who say the things needed to get a conviction and jurors are encouraged to blindly trust that.
- vkou 4y ago
  That's the whole point of the adversarial system. The prosecution finds experts that state one opinion, the defense finds experts that say a contrary opinion, the juries pick out whose opinions they want to believe. That's the whole point of expert witnesses - they are the only witnesses in the courtroom who are there for their opinions. The problem is that one side of this equation has a cottage industry of well-funded experts to pick from, but there isn't a cottage industry of well-funded 'bullshit debunkers' to work for the defense.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    That's incomplete, to some extent. The Daubert standard says the judge is a gatekeeper who can rule that a given expert's opinion will not be presented to the jury unless the expert's opinions are relevant, reliable, and based in scientific knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
  - tinalumfoil 4y ago
    It's more than that. The judge usually has a good relationship with the prosecution, and the judge is deciding on what the jury is allowed to see and what expert witnesses are allowed to testify as expert witnesses.
  - sobkas 4y ago
    >the defense finds experts defense finds nothing because it's a public lawyer and he barely can afford paper for photocopier, so no highly paid experts for you if you are poor
the_af 4y ago
> g) talking to the police -- somehow invoking the fifth is something only bad guys do -- it is the other way around. And that is causing issues already. The "don't talk to the police" video has been shared enough times on HN that I know I will never do so, at least in the US. The video claims you are likely to incriminate yourself and be charged with something even if you didn't commit the crime the police is investigating!

tinalumfoil 4y ago

A lot of these problems come from deference to experts who wear the hat of science. For instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Adams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Adams a man was convicted because an expert said the DNA gave 1 in 200 million chance of incorrect match (or something similar), which is incorrect. I don't remember enough details to look it up, but I recall a US case where the prosecution repeatedly used an expert with a history of lying on stand and of course people wrongly spent time in jail for that. I think a bigger issue here, at least in the US, is prosecutions seems to have a really easy time finding experts, often on the same payroll as the prosecution, who say the things needed to get a conviction and jurors are encouraged to blindly trust that.

vkou 4y ago
That's the whole point of the adversarial system. The prosecution finds experts that state one opinion, the defense finds experts that say a contrary opinion, the juries pick out whose opinions they want to believe. That's the whole point of expert witnesses - they are the only witnesses in the courtroom who are there for their opinions. The problem is that one side of this equation has a cottage industry of well-funded experts to pick from, but there isn't a cottage industry of well-funded 'bullshit debunkers' to work for the defense.
- eesmith 4y ago
  That's incomplete, to some extent. The Daubert standard says the judge is a gatekeeper who can rule that a given expert's opinion will not be presented to the jury unless the expert's opinions are relevant, reliable, and based in scientific knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
- tinalumfoil 4y ago
  It's more than that. The judge usually has a good relationship with the prosecution, and the judge is deciding on what the jury is allowed to see and what expert witnesses are allowed to testify as expert witnesses.
- sobkas 4y ago
  >the defense finds experts defense finds nothing because it's a public lawyer and he barely can afford paper for photocopier, so no highly paid experts for you if you are poor

the_af 4y ago

> g) talking to the police -- somehow invoking the fifth is something only bad guys do -- it is the other way around. And that is causing issues already. The "don't talk to the police" video has been shared enough times on HN that I know I will never do so, at least in the US. The video claims you are likely to incriminate yourself and be charged with something even if you didn't commit the crime the police is investigating!