Slashdot Mirror


Crime Lab Scandals Just Keep Getting Worse (slate.com)

Many people are convicted in American courts on the basis of drug lab analysis. Just how accurate or accountable are the people and labs? schwit1 writes with an excerpt that gives a good reminder of how people can land in jail based on fake data, with the example (an outlier, surely) of Annie Dookhan, a chemist who worked at a Massachusetts state lab drug. Dookhan was sentenced in 2013 to at least three years in prison, after pleading guilty in 2012 to having falsified thousands of drug tests. Among her extracurricular crime lab activities, Dookhan failed to properly test drug samples before declaring them positive, mixed up samples to create positive tests, forged signatures, and lied about her own credentials. Over her nine-year career, Dookhan tested about 60,000 samples involved in roughly 34,000 criminal cases. Three years later, the state of Massachusetts still can't figure out how to repair the damage she wrought almost single-handedly.

28 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. three years? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about adding up all the time served by the people who got false convictions, then doubling it.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:three years? by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's a thing that would appear to point to a (another) big flaw in the system; prosecutors are apparently immune from their flawed actions. They're slow to remedy wrongful convictions in these cases this Annie Dookhan tainted, and they don't appear to be accountable. Many of the news articles (and there are a lot about this lab, not only was this Dookhan character tainting evidence, but a co-worker routinely dipped into the drug bin and was high during her processing) remark on the fact that the prosecutors involved refuse to do anything about the thousands sitting in jail based on these faulty tests citing they followed procedure. I can't think of a bigger flaw in a system wherein the ones in power refuse to correct the situation. The criminal justice system in this country is in dire straits. Thanks mainly to the war on drugs.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:three years? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a huge part of the problem and is very revealing. Prosecutors and judges decide there is no particular hurry to get the many innocent people convicted by the worst kind of false evidence out of jail, then go home to their nicer than average homes and have a better than average dinner with their families while the innocent eat the cheapest crap that can legally be called food while locked away from their friends and family.

      Once the wheels of justice grind away, more slowly than usual, they will act as if they are doing the falsely convicted the worlds biggest favor simply by not further wrongly punishing them.

      As for compensation, start by looking at how much you have to pay someone to willingly live under poor conditions away from their family for an extended period of time. So you're looking at paying them what you would pay a North Atlantic oil platform worker at a minimum. Then double it because there was no furlough on offer and double it again because they didn't willingly accept the arrangement.

  2. Systematic Failure by Hasaf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People will look at this person as a bd person, and I do not question that; but the system that allowed this to happen is the real culprit. A system that rewards people, formally or subtly, for producing the desired results, is not a system that is engineered for finding truth.

    The reality is that Lae Enforcement and investigation procedures need independent oversight built directly into the system. Otherwise these issues can never be resolved.

    1. Re:Systematic Failure by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting
      When you can cheat for so long with nobody finding out that you can ruin hundreds of thousands of lives, then the system is also broken.

      She should have had to serve the time of all of her victims x 3. She got off way too easily.

      And what "punishment" for a system that has allowed a single person to screw up 50,000 or so cases? The system is fine. It fucks the poor. It fucks the minorities. It fucks the people we don't like. So keep the system the way it is, and replace the broken cog in the broken machine, and let the broken machine still pump out bad results.

      And 3x the time of the victims is a silly sentence. Let's say every conviction (some wrongly, some rightly) were 1 year (some shorter, some longer), that's 34,000 (current estimate, could be more) years in prison. That's purely symbolic and does nothing to prevent this from happening again, nor make any of the tainted convictions right.

      What would you do with the victims of her crimes?

  3. Re:Witness by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Eye-witness testimony is nigh useless even when people aren't deliberately fabricating. The human brain is just too "flexible" for that kind of thing.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  4. Simple way to 'repair' 'damage' by cellocgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just pass some retroactive laws legalizing drug use. Problem solved. No need for new trials. No new costs, and dramatically reduced law enforcement budget going forward. Plus revenue from tax stamps on recreational substances.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:Simple way to 'repair' 'damage' by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The way it is now, only those stupid enough to be caught using drugs contribute to the data which causes the results to suggest that using drugs makes you stupid.

      I totally agree. This whole notion that people who use meth or heroine all day are in any way impacted by those drugs is just The Man trying to keep us down. Substantial studies showing that young people who smoke dope end up dumber, more paranoid, and otherwise developmentally down the scale - that's all just BS (never mind that such studies line up perfectly with the observations any honest person will tell you they've made through their own experience). Yes, it's just like alcohol, I know. Which is a good argument for young people not being drunk all the time, too.

      You know what? Use 'em. But cut off ALL health care paid for in any way by other people, and ALL public assistance when they can no longer hold a job because they're such mental train wrecks. Can't have it both ways. If you want the public to embrace the use of, say, crack or crystal meth, then the public also gets to be off the hook for buying those users a comfortable life at the expense of the people who don't do it, and keep producing. Yes, the same applies for drinking all day, or eating too much fried chicken or schnitzel.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Simple way to 'repair' 'damage' by DarkTempes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While drugs are bad there is also evidence that shitty environmental situations, not just addiction, drive people to drugs in the first place.

      Your "honest person observation" smells an awful lot like what prejudice people say when they want to persecute minorities.
      "Any honest person will tell you that, in their experience, [group] are [lazy/dumb/useless/not REAL people so it's ok that we treat them like shit]"

      Giving drug abusers an even shittier environment to live in by demonizing them isn't going to lead to better outcomes for society.
      Watch this but with a grain of salt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      The point is not that the public should embrace the use of drugs but that the war on drugs is a complete failure and actually doing harm.
      It only makes sense that you should try something else when what you're doing isn't working.

      For example, we could legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs and use the income from taxes on marijuana to fund education to prevent abuse and social programs to help abusers get back on their feet and be proud of themselves and break their addiction (and, possibly more importantly, their need for their addiction.)
      Ideally we'd try lots of different methods of helping people and use studies to see which methods are actually effective and worth continued funding.

      So, we wouldn't be wasting taxes on law enforcement and prison sentences for abusers, we'd hopefully undercut the black market and cut down on drug related crime, it would potential be self-funding (the best kind of taxation), and people might actually get help instead of being treated like scum.

      I don't have any ideas for what to do about drug dealers who can no longer make a profit selling drugs, though. It'd suck to collapse that economy and drive them to a worse crime.

      And honestly, we already tax alcohol and tobacco and I have to wonder where all of that money is going. It seems to me if 100% of that were going to education and social programs for drug abusers (including alcohol and tobacco) then we'd probably be in a lot better place.

  5. Up The Ladder by magusxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And where was her boss during all of this? Did he give her raises by checking her performance or her conviction rate?

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  6. meme.jpg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not both?

    Yeah, she should be nailed to a raft by her ears and set adrift on the ocean.

    But we should have a system of justice that isn't so prone to corruption by way of weak oversight.

  7. Re:Witness by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    fiigure out how to repair the damage she wrought almost single-handedly." ? just put a colt 45 on her temple and shirly temple the trigger so that there is no tampering of evidence when it comes to "whose brains are these"

    There's a big difference between revenge/punishment for the responsible person and making things right for all of the people that may have been convicted who were innocent. It's not like you can give them their time back. Nor can you repair the emotional and psychological damage done. Prison isn't summer camp. Spending any significant time there is going to change most people, and not for the best. Most convicted criminals come out as better criminals. I can't imagine what being in that environment would do to someone who knows they shouldn't be there to begin with.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Re:Witness by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Due to CSI and similar shows, forensic evidence is sacrosanct. If you want to go to court today, you better have some DNA test available (even if it makes no sense at all) or the jury will simply not believe you. But having something out of a lab seals the deal.

    Don't get me wrong, it's a GOOD thing that people now give more credibility to material evidence than witnesses, but as usual we're overdoing it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. There should be redundancy in these tests by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems to me that something as important as evidence testing should be carried out by at least two separate, independent labs. The extra costs are significant but less so than the ramifications of false results being introduced into the process (intentional or not)

    1. Re:There should be redundancy in these tests by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...And even if there isn't any cheating, there is the possibility that the two labs would come to different conclusions honestly, due to the inherent messiness of most criminal matters.

      You cite that like it is a problem with double checking results. No, that is the very feature we wish to implement. It two labs come to different conclusions, that throws them both into doubt - and then additional checking must be initiated to resolve the discrepancies. If a repeatable result is not possible, then it is not evidence. Period.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  11. Re:Witness by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 5, Informative

    To be fair, witnesses should have zero credibility.

    Start here: Intro to Eyewitness Identification, still ongoing. Then go back to the beginning, it's a good read.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  12. It's not just the criminal justice system. by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The civil justice system is just as big a mess, and for the same reason as TFA implies. Strangely absent from both systems are the victims and the accused, the petitioners and the respondents, the actual citizens that the system purportedly serves.

    Instead, both parties touch the system only at its very edge. Their actual cases happen more or less without them, winding their way through an impossibly large-scale system full of paid actors whose jobs, practically speaking, at the level of everyday experience, are not to think about the parties in the case, but to perform the same particularistic tasks day after day in massive volumes before handing things off to other paid actors in a massive division of labor.

    It's a kind of assembly line or factory for legal activity and paperwork production. The complete details of any single case, civil or criminal, are not known by anyone within the system—even the judges, commissioners, and magistrates that hear them—even though the actual parties to the case know their own stories inside and out. There is no facility or room within the system for its paid actors to actually get to know a case, through either party's eyes. Instead, each professional focuses only on the tiny fragment of each case that they are responsible for before handing it off to the next professional.

    There is essentially no oversight for any part of the system, and even if there was, plausible deniability is huge, since each professional knows and interacts with only the tiniest part of each case, yet most legal statues offer recourse only if poor or unprofessional practice are more likely than not to have actually altered the final outcomes of this division of labor involving many months, dozens or hundreds of specialists, and a significant degree of uncertainty due to the vagaries of interaction and logistics.

    It is a forest-for-trees problem to the Nth power, but it's difficult to see any way to address it; to be just, the law needs to be well-documented, clear and explicit, and to have nuance and detail. This necessarily makes it large and complex. That implies the need for professionals that have been trained in it. But a professional that dedicates their life to law must be able to make a living. Most individuals cannot afford to pay an entire salary to a legal professional, much less the many that must work on a given case due to the complexity of the law, and thus, they cannot expect these professionals to dedicate themselves to a single case. Instead, the costs of the professionals' salaries must be shared amongst literally many thousands of victims, accused, petitioners, and respondents, meaning that the professionals must limit their consumption of case details to just those in which they specialize, or face mountains of information with which they can't possibly cope and the consumption of which would impact their ability to do the job in which they specialize.

    As a result, for the average citizen, bringing a case or participating in a case is like playing a giant, almost comically huge game of Plinko. The case enters at one end of the machine and knocks about between pegs endlessly and seemingly at random, well out of their reach, for what seems like ages, while they stand by, breathless and helpless. At the end, the case exits somewhere, with some sort of decision, but the relationship between its final disposition and its initial circumstances are completely unpredictable and due to the nature of the machine, and it's difficult to argue that any part of the game machine is "broken" most of the time—a peg in the machine has to be severely affected (i.e. missing, malformed, completely bent) for such a claim to be viable. Minor variances throughout may influence outcomes for a very long time without being detectable, even under scrutiny. And for the most part, there is no budget, much less any avenue even for the funding and organization of a program of scrutiny.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  13. End the drug war by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    End the drug war. Free its non-violent victims. That'd be a great start.

    As for anyone convicted due to the person's work, or convicted where this person could have been involved, they should be set free immediately and their records cleared of said convictions.

    The fact that they didn't go right after this simply tells us just how corrupt the system is. "Justice", my aching ass.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:End the drug war by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Do you have any bias against testimony by police officers?" was one of the explicit questions asked when I last served.

    2. Re:End the drug war by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yes, you have to be hit with the stupid stick to get on a jury

      You have to be hit with the asshole stick to not serve. The jury is the very last line of defense from bad law, bad cops, bad lawyers, and bad judges. Not to mention a corrupt and evil prison system, relegation to permanent bottom economic and social classes, loss of family, friends, possessions, job, credit rating, employability...

      The jury is all that's left to us now. The last remaining semblance of justice within the actions of the system has been ashes for years.

      When you refuse to serve, you are abandoning your fellow citizens. Both the ones that are victims of criminals, and the ones that are victims of the governement machine.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  14. I know that lab very well by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been the Hinton Lab in Jamaica Plain dozens of times. The people I worked with there from the lowest lab tech to the middle managers were outstanding, but they were in the epidemiology end of things. The drug testing lab was segregated on its own floor, and it was walled off like a fortress. But despite that superficial formidability of the drug testing lab, there was clearly a problem: back in 2007 the director of the crime lab resigned because mishandling DNA tests, and before that the lab had been in trouble for processing DNA too slowly. There were rape kits that had been waiting to be processed for eighteen years.

    Yet despite the review of the crime lab's procedures that followed this scandal, Annie Dookhan was able to continue with her antics for an other four years before she was caught. It's odd that she was even hired with her phony degrees because that was the year it came out that Ralph Timperi, the Hinton Lab's overall director, got his PhD from a diploma mill. You'd think that'd trigger a little more scrutiny.

    It all makes the entire Hinton Lab sound like a hot mess, but with the exception of Timperi's phony degree all the problems were in the crime lab, which while located inside the Hinton Lab building was (IIRC) actually overseen by the Massachusetts State Police. Possibly some kind of responsibility thing was going on there. On the public health side of things the people at the state labs were among of the best public employees I've ever dealt with, and I've worked with state and county agencies across the country. It's a shame they've been tainted.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  15. Re:Witness by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wrong, you turn every single person free.

    When the evidence is tainted, the case gets thrown out.

    Thats how we ensure the innocent are not put in jail, and we do so at the cost of letting some criminals free when we would have preferred not to.

    But then we consider every person involved in those cases as having failed, specifically the prosecution. And we turn the arrest into a bad arrest and count that against the police.

    When this shit happens, you punish the ever living shit out of everyone involved in the chain that fucked up because they put innocent people behind bars and ruined other peoples lives in their overzealousness to get a collar and conviction.

    Make false convictions essentially a career ender for everyone in the chain and watch how quick things shape up. Make the population so pissed off at any lawyer or cop who allows this shit to happen that they are afraid of being lynched when they fuck up in the future.

    They have no reason to fear mistakes they make, someone else suffers, it has no bearing on their life. Change that and you'll fix the problem.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  16. blame the man by DrProton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I blame management, the prosecutors, and the judges. There was a serious lack of oversight, obviously.

    Let's say she worked 250 days/year, a conservative assumption. That means she was averaging ~ 6E4/(9*250) ~ 27 analyses/day. Assuming 8 hours actual work/day, that means she was completing an analysis roughly every 18 minutes. I'm a physicist. I've worked in a manufacturing facility with a chem lab that analyzed production samples. Hell, sample prep can take 20 minutes! There is no way she was completing these analyses accurately. Her boss must have known something was amiss. A reasonable assumption is that he or she knew so and had wink/nod arrangement with the prosecutors and the courts.

    Our "justice" system is deeply flawed, and this is more evidence of the systemic flaws in it. Kudos to Ms. Lithwick for covering this beat.

    --
    "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
  17. Re: Witness by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As the person who did the drug testing, she (and the other person mentioned in the second article) was a witness. So Annie Dookhan has given false testimony in at least 34,000 cases, and Sonja Farak in another 29,000 cases. And the former Attorney General is alleged to have known beforehand, that Sonja Farak's tests could be tainted and didn't inform the defense attorneys.

    But that's what you get if you measure the success of a state attorney by the numbers of convictions and guilty pleas he gets from the defendants. And that's what you get when ignoring the rights of defendants during the investigation and before court is hailed as "being tough on crime". Somewhere, people are getting sloppy and start cheating just to get higher scores. And instead of justice, you just get high costs for running an extensive prison system to keep all those people, whose convictions and guilty pleas are mostly about their prosecuter's career and not so much about crimes they really committed (if any).

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  18. Re:"costs are significant but..." by rl117 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For QC based on individual items, you might test a small percentage, for batch-based products you might also do tests on every batch as a whole at every stage of its production, plus randomised testing of individual packaged units. I used to work in a QC laboratory, doing testing of both. For some tests, we would also run known standards every time we tested an unknown sample, or set of samples to ensure that the results were always accurate, and always ran both multiple replicates of the standard and multiple replicates of each sample to ensure they were consistent within a certain standard deviation. This guards against calibration errors on the machines and errors on the part of the sample prep or operator. We would occasionally also send samples to external independent laboratories to verify the accuracy of our processes. In this case it wasn't forensics, and there was no need for anonymising the samples. For forensics, I would have hoped that they would also be running anonymous control samples through the pipeline as well (both negative and varying degrees of positive) to validate their process. The technicians don't even need to be aware of it--you simply introduce them as incoming test samples and then validate that the results matched the expectations after testing is done and logged.

  19. Or just poor by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For years I lived paycheck to paycheck (I had 3 major family illnesses hit me all at once, yay). I got called but was working for a company with a jury duty benefit. It only paid 2 weeks, but the trial was only 2 weeks. If I got called for a murder trial I'd have to beg the judge and hope he wasn't an asshole.

    The trouble with juries is they are inherently conservative and right wing because only successful people who've never experienced any hardship can really afford to be on them. Everyone else just googles for how to get out of 'em (or asks around pre-google). That's not by accident. Every major facet of our legal system was built to protect property owners from the unwashed masses...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Or just poor by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Informative

      The trouble with juries is they are inherently conservative and right wing because only successful people who've never experienced any hardship can really afford to be on them.

      I'm not sure where you came up with this line of reasoning. Many (most?) people who have lots of jury time available are government employees. Teachers and the like are not generally known as "inherently conservative and right wing". Certainly as a group less so than the private sector people around them.