There is a long history of junk science in forensics [1]. Often this junk science is used to reinforce established biases and give bloodthirsty juries a hook to

There is a long history of junk science in forensics [1]. Often this junk science is used to reinforce established biases and give bloodthirsty juries a hook to hang a conviction hat on. Now polygraphs now generally aren't admissible in court. This wasn't always the case [2]. Still, law enforcement does use them to eliminate or confirm suspects outside of a court environment. This can just confirming existing biases. And that's the deeper issue here: the American criminal justice system is mainly retributive or punitive. Long setnences for minor crimes. High conviction rates. Abuse of the power imbalance between prosecutors and defendants. Judges that essentially work for the prosecution (eg [3]). Juries that just want to convict. Of anything. Yet there's ample evidence none of this is effective whereas something as simple as giving inmates cats to look after is extremely effective at reducing recidivism [4]. My point is that technology can be (and has been) used as a crutch to confirm biases and that criminals are still people and we should treat them as people. [1]: https://www.propublica.org/article/understanding-junk-science-forensics-criminal-justice https://www.propublica.org/article/understanding-junk-scienc... [2]: https://axeligence.com/polygraph-admissibility-in-united-states-courts/ https://axeligence.com/polygraph-admissibility-in-united-sta... [3]: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/young-thug-rico-trial-judge-glanville-recused-1235060731/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/young-thug-ric... [4]: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/indianapolis/2020/10/19/cats-inmates-rehabilitate-each-other-through-animal-care-program/5798291002/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/indianapolis/2020/...