3 ms·
> I would hope that no one is convicted on this tech alone. I have bad news for you about what is already regularly used in court to convict people, and the sc
by chimeracoder 3y ago
> I would hope that no one is convicted on this tech alone.
I have bad news for you about what is already regularly used in court to convict people, and the scientific validity thereof.
- cooper_ganglia 3y agoAny examples?
- chimeracoder 3y ago> Any examples? Pretty much everything that makes up "forensics", except for DNA analysis (and even that carries a huge asterisk). Fingerprints, bite marks, blood spatter... the list goes on. Drug tests are borderline - reliable drug tests exist, but police often use tests with much higher false positive rates. Believe it or not, "police psychics" also exist[0], and are used to manufacture probable cause, so that also fits the definition of "used to convict people". Forensic psuedoscience is widely known to be junk by modern scientific standards, but courts have stuck by it, in part because "that's how it's been done for decades/centuries", and in part because they have acknowledged that it would be too difficult to convict many cases if forensics were deemed inadmissible. [0] https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R000100280009-3.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R0001002...
- chucksta 3y agoNotable missing in the other response is polygraph, only a handful of states accept them. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/are-lie-detector-tests-admissible-in-court.html https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/are-lie-d...
- rossant 3y agoLook up shaken baby syndrome https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402