3 ms·

>DNA testing and forensics in general is a complete scam What? Every single one of those links either supports DNA testing or doesn't mention it. It's certai

>DNA testing and forensics in general is a complete scam What? Every single one of those links either supports DNA testing or doesn't mention it. It's certainly true that a lot of forensics turns out to be borderline pseudoscience or superstition (everyone should read the newyorker link when they have time) but don't just lump everything together. (Also don't lead with a link to alternet unless you want bias readers against you!)

Alex3917 14y ago
"Every single one of those links either supports DNA testing or doesn't mention it." Did you read the NYT article? Also, the issue isn't whether DNA testing could work in theory if it were done by academics under ideal conditions. The issue is whether or not the DNA testing that's actually done by forensics labs is A) accurate (not contaminated, read properly, etc.) B) used correctly by the courts. It also assumes that the police aren't planting evidence against suspects, either purposely or accidentally, that the chain of custody is maintained, etc. There is very little reason to think that these things are always the case.
- shardling 14y ago
  >Did you read the NYT article? Yes. Could you point to the specific part you feel is relevant?
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    The whole premise of the article is that if the DNA matches, the prosecutors argue that you're guilty, and if the DNA doesn't match, the prosecutors argue that you're guilty anyway. If the results of a forensic 'test' show that you're guilty no matter what the outcome, that's pretty much the very definition of a sham. They might as well be using a truth-telling chicken.
    - shardling 14y ago
      That is not the picture the article actually paints.
      - Alex3917 14y ago
        "The unnamed-lover theory has been floated so often that defense lawyers have a derisive term for it: 'the unindicted co-ejaculator.'"
        shardling 14y ago
        It was also unsuccessful in a great many of those cases. Prosecutors don't determine whether you're guilty or not -- the issue isn't what they say, but whether juries believe them. The article was about how prosecutors are very unwilling to accept DNA evidence, not about systematic problems with its interpretation.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      Do you think the prosecution will stop arguing that people are guilty if they stop DNA testing?

Alex3917 14y ago

"Every single one of those links either supports DNA testing or doesn't mention it." Did you read the NYT article? Also, the issue isn't whether DNA testing could work in theory if it were done by academics under ideal conditions. The issue is whether or not the DNA testing that's actually done by forensics labs is A) accurate (not contaminated, read properly, etc.) B) used correctly by the courts. It also assumes that the police aren't planting evidence against suspects, either purposely or accidentally, that the chain of custody is maintained, etc. There is very little reason to think that these things are always the case.

shardling 14y ago
>Did you read the NYT article? Yes. Could you point to the specific part you feel is relevant?
- Alex3917 14y ago
  The whole premise of the article is that if the DNA matches, the prosecutors argue that you're guilty, and if the DNA doesn't match, the prosecutors argue that you're guilty anyway. If the results of a forensic 'test' show that you're guilty no matter what the outcome, that's pretty much the very definition of a sham. They might as well be using a truth-telling chicken.
  - shardling 14y ago
    That is not the picture the article actually paints.
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      "The unnamed-lover theory has been floated so often that defense lawyers have a derisive term for it: 'the unindicted co-ejaculator.'"
      - shardling 14y ago
        It was also unsuccessful in a great many of those cases. Prosecutors don't determine whether you're guilty or not -- the issue isn't what they say, but whether juries believe them. The article was about how prosecutors are very unwilling to accept DNA evidence, not about systematic problems with its interpretation.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Do you think the prosecution will stop arguing that people are guilty if they stop DNA testing?