4 ms·

A few years ago I remember reading reports of the FBI forensic labs doing much worse-- taking evidence from the crime scene and contaminating evidence taken fro

• PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  I think, the problem is similar to the trouble we have with judges in our country. One judge recently said something that really put a very shady light on many of his colleagues. I regret, that I don't remember it exactly, what he said. The trouble in my opinion with some judges in my country and with the police in some countries is, that everybody just assumes, that because they work for law enforcement, they have a high level of integrity. But when you look how they are educated, the subject "integrity" is not even touched (I even don't think, that it is taught in law schools). In my country, when somebody is already a judge, there is nearly no chance at all, that this person will be held accountable for misjudging. I think, not even the highest courts can replace a judge that repeatedly and knowingly is bending the law. At least I don't know of any case at all where a judge was punished or even replaced. And don't think, that all judgments are correct in my country. In my opinion, when there is one thing to be learned from history, it is that any person can err and even the best meaning persons can change into dictators over time depending on situations.
  • MCRed 12y ago
    Yes, and having travelled extensively and lived in Mexico and Chile, my experience tells me that while the USA has failed to have adequate checks and balances, other countries often have even less. I loved both of those countries, but I wouldn't really feel safe in Mexico, and I didn't feel fully safe in Chile. I think the Carabineros of chile are taught integrity and are mostly above reproach, however, and so I hold Chile out as a good example of doing it right. But even still, none of these countries have enough checks and balances. I think the problem is there's a magical thing that happens to people when they think about government. They somehow think it's ok for government to do things that individuals cannot. And once you give a group of people that magical power, it's easy to forget that they are people.
    • PythonicAlpha 12y ago
      When I was younger, I thought that the western countries (US and Western Europe) are better (off) than other countries like South America or Asia, because they have much less corruption than those countries. Today I am differentiating much more and I must admit that I am not knowing, why we are better of as for example South American countries. Of course, they have a high level of corruption, but when you look deeper, you will see, that we in Europe have also much corruption. The main difference: While in many South America countries everybody knows about the corruption, for example in Germany corruption is much much more covered -- but it exists, maybe even in the same degree as in South American countries. It is just covered much more. What makes me worry is, that while the normal police-men in Germany may have integrity, the normal top-politician seems to have none left. I can give no name of a top politician today, where I would assume, that he is not influenced or even bribed by some groups. I think, that this gives a really bad signal to all the people in this nation. Many say: "Why should I pay taxes, for those crooked people?" And I must admit, that this is a strong argument in these times.
      • MichaelGG 12y ago
        The difference is that in the US and EU, stuff generally works. People are educated and there's some sense of doing things properly. This sense seems far more diminished in South America. And many people just come to expect this. So people that can do well, they (rightfully) look out for themselves. When everything sucks, there's just more important stuff than worrying about a state official stealing millions. If things in the US started falling apart then I'm guessing folks would get upset and demand changes.
• bmelton 12y ago
  Made all the worse by the federal government's digital data collection, to which the only falsification that needs be done is an insert statement into a record, and not even falsifications need to be done, as they can likely paint a picture of a myriad of suspects who happen to have been at a point a and a point b within x and y interval.
• higherpurpose 12y ago
  Don't worry, it's just a few bad apples...that spoil the whole barrel.
• arto 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Laboratory#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Laboratory#Controversy > The history of the FBI Lab hasn't been without controversy. Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who joined the FBI in 1982 and served as a Supervisory Special Agent at the Lab from 1986 to 1998, blew the whistle on scientific misconduct at the Lab. In a subsequent investigation, it was found that evidence had been falsified, altered, or suppressed, or that FBI agents had testified falsely, in as many as 10,000 cases, resulting in many false convictions. More than a decade later, cases were still being overturned because of this massive fraud.
  • smsm42 12y ago
    Looks like they are back on track. I foresee in 2025 somebody writing "massive scientific misconduct and fraud has been discovered in FBI labs from 2010 till 2020, but the major reforms implemented since should prevent if from reoccurring in the future".
• coldtea 12y ago
  >In fact over the past 20 years I've heard this story at least a dozen times-- where crime "labs" at different levels of government and in different states (eg: state labs, federal lagbs, etc) were caught doing this. Yes, the problem is that those "crime labs" are not scientists, they are basically scientists-turned-cops. As you propose, those should be independent labs, perhaps private, that live and die by their reputation for results (and could be hit with a huge lawsuit if they're not careful, unlike a government agency). And double-bind should be mandatory too.