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/
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.
I believe that one comes after the episode where they take on the easy hackability of RFID.
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.