Slashdot Mirror
The Fight To Reform Forensic Science
carmendrahl writes "Despite a 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences that found the science in crime labs wanting, very little reform of forensic science has taken place. At a session about the Innocence Project, a group that exonerates prisoners with DNA evidence, speakers called on chemists to join the fight for reform. But forensic chemists don't all agree on what needs reforming."
People watch shows like Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime and think forensic results are infallible and always available in less than 40 minutes.
I posted this link on a related story some time back. This is a must see if you think you know how bad forensic science (or lack of science) really is:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/
is like numbers in restaurants.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
One of the recurring themes that keeps popping up in blog posts on prominent civil libertarians' blogs is that the judges rarely, if ever, call out blatant bullshit such as "bite mark analysis" or sanction prosecutors for withholding evidence. We need reforms that let judges be swiftly fired in some of these cases.
The problem with forensic science is that it's less a science and more an art. Take identifying the flash point of a fire for example -- it's not as easy as people say or suspect. For years, "scientists" would point to certain fracture patterns or scorching marks and say that was the source, but there was never any studies done on it. It was mostly speculation, compounded by experience. Without any feedback on whether they were actually right or wrong, they developed a false sense of confidence. And in court, confidence + authority = conviction.
The problem is that the legal system doesn't use scientific standards, it uses legal standards. And the law is based on experience -- it is forever looking backwards. A precident set 200 years ago is just as applicable in a court today as it was in the intervening years. Science, on the other hand, only considers the most current understanding relevant. And that's where the problems start. The law says that once a kind of forensic examination carries legal weight, then even if it is later conclusively proven scientifically to be false, it does not overturn past convictions, nor does it prevent its use in the present.
Our justice system is not about fairness or justice -- it is about maintaining public perception of order, which is a separate and distinct concept. It can be quite orderly and efficient to never allow a new trial for the convicted... it is not necessarily fair.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Too often the forensic office is friends with and/or pressured by the police or DA to get results. Especially in election years or for high profile casrs.
Forensic science should be done behind a blind. I.E., with no name or trackable case number attached to the evidence, by a lab in an entirely different physical area than the case.
Anonymous methods of communication can be devised to pass requests back and forth.
In addition, whenever possible the work should be peer reviewed as in redone, again anoymously by another lab.
We spend millions locking up people for joints, this is peoples entire lives that are ruined by mistakes, over zealouness, and -gasp- corruption.
But, lile security theater, it is not about safety, but the illusion of safety. Oh, and raking in tax dollars for a job done wrong.
Silence is a state of mime.
How about the mythbusters testing that CSI stuff to show people how much of it real and how much is BS and what is junk science.
It is almost as if most forensic scientific labs are funded primarily through money gathered based on convictions, and not on innocence.
Kind of like how our prisons are clogged up with non-violent offenders to provide cheap prison labor even though most of those people are no threat to our society.
But so long as most of this comes from prosecutorial funds, why should we expect otherwise?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I believe that one comes after the episode where they take on the easy hackability of RFID.
It is. Moreover, since the knowledge of the above is so widespread, it is for them to prove otherwise.
I nominate Nancy Grace.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
CSI is a bit of the tail waging the dog. I know one company that changed their UI to rotate through random fingerprint and mugshot photos when searching because there was an expectation to make the thing look like it does on CSI.
After the break, we strap eleventy hundred pounds of C4 to an RFID tag in our attempt to hack it!
I sort of drifted away from that show when it started catering to the Michael Bay fans and felt the need to WARN viewers that there was some actual science content coming up.
Cheap labor? I look at what we spend per prisoner here n California, and "cheap" isn't the first word that occurs to me. Also don't see a lot of actual labor happening.
Yeah, that's easy for you to say.
It is, in fact, the judges job to determine what evidence is admissible in court. The judge has access to all the evidence either side wishes to produce. He is in as good a position as anybody (excepting the prosecution) to know whether evidence is being withheld, and has the authority to hold parties contempt if he finds they are guilty of misconduct, like withholding evidence.
It is almost as if you're suggesting an argument without actually making a positive assertion or providing any evidence of such. Can you cite any statistical correlations between forensic budgets and convictions from same or are you just throwing things up to see what sticks?
No, I am just basing it on my brother's old criminology text books.
But .. I'm not an AC.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Only valid use of forensic evidence is to proof a person is not guilty! PERIOD!
Just because it isn't cheap for you doesn't mean it isn't cheap for those who run the prison. They basically double taking money for housing and security while also turning a profit running an old fashioned slave operation.
You don't get to say what gets tested and what sort of evidence you want to try to recover. That means that someone in the "chain of events" before you already makes the decision if they think it will "help the case" if some test gets done. Depending on what their interpretation of "helping the case" is, things either get tested fair and balanced, with the possibility that a lot of community money gets spent without a conviction, or as little money as possible gets spent, with unknown consequences for justice and crime solve ratings. This may shift the "blame" away from the actual labs, but it doesn't mean that there isn't any improvement in the process possible.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
And what assurance can you offer us poor peons that DNA collected will not be kept forever - to be snythesized and planted for a future case?
And given that you're in the belly of the State beast, what is your personal opinon of 'voluntary' collection of DNA samples (he didn't submit anything? GUILTY) from a community or neighborhood (obviously never one with fancy gates)?
The 2006 Duke LaCrosse case showed how badly the financial dependence of the lab on public officials compromised the defendants' rights.
Name gives away true agenda, it is an umbrella campaign group aimed at overturning convictions and not to find out the truth innocence or guilt.
Unqualified people find unequivocally more convincing despite the fact that are more likely to be wrong.
Qualified statement are more accurate but less convincing to the unqualified.
The problem here is not the scientific evidence it is unqualified juries.
The status quo of the forensic labs working for a law enforcement agency needs to change. Law enforcement agencies will hire people with a law enforcement mindset. They collect and process material looking for probative evidence while not seeking exculpatory evidence. Management can pressure them to provide a desired result. Independent forensic labs could solve part of this problem. Not necessarily private labs, but not part of a law enforcement agency.
Here is a case study in how not to collect and store a sample. While not a law enforcement action the effect ruined a life:
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol10/iss1/5/ Download the pdf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Whitehurst#FBI_career and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation_Laboratory offer some useful background on the topic.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html "Fill in the tech" applies to CSI shows as well. That's how we get infinitely sharp magnification and instant DNA results.
Your anecdotal evidence and your spin do nothing to refute the fact that bad labs, misuse, errors, and prosecutorial misconduct go on every day.
Spin. Anecdote. Spin.
If you look at the historical record (for example all those cases, including capital cases, where DNA exonerates) you see that every tech(nology) has been subverted and misused. DNA has been and will be as well - nature of the beast. The prosecutor is to be feared, and kept very wary of - they hold the power of imprisonment, life and death (look at conviction rates.) Unless you are rich and connected like OJ. And they got him in the end too.
Spin. Anecdote. Spin.
Every negative cite or example you are given is labelled by you as an exception, or the musings of a paranoiac. Every glowing example you give is supposed to be common and widespread (public) institutional practice.
Sorry, given the state of reporting, bias, and ass-covering by everyone, including BOTH private and public sectors, I don't buy it.
Spin. Anecdote. Spin.