The Fight To Reform Forensic Science 93
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."
Re:Must-see Frontline (Score:5, Informative)
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/ [pbs.org]
Here's the ProPublica article [propublica.org] written in conjunction with the PBS Frontline episode linked above, for those who like to read rather than watch.
Re:Must-see Frontline (Score:5, Informative)
Citation? People should keep in mind that you don't know what you're talking about.
I work at a forensic lab that's nominally under the budgetary authority of a police agency, so I speak from personal experience when I say that I've never seen a case where anyone has been "cherry picking what tests they are going to run to suit the needs presupposed by the authorities".
We generally don't have a wide range of tests to chose from in any given scenario. They tell us what they suspect is present and we tell them if that's possible or impossible.
I've also never seen even an inkling of pressure as to what conclusions to be drawn by lab management. We also go out of our way to offer equal time and access to defense teams and experts, even though they're often actively hostile. It's true that we work with the police and prosecution more often than not, but that's a structural artifact that arises from the fact that there's usually no defense team once we find evidence that contradicts the prosecutions case since charges are usually dropped. We do post-conviction testing when it's requested without prejudice.
Lab management don't care the slightest bit about convictions and usually don't pay any attention to cases after we've testified. As far as I know, budgets are tied most closely to case output and backlogs. I don't think anyone even tracks convictions at our lab, much less ties them to budgets.
As for accreditation, I can conclusively say you're wrong, as any lab that lacks ISO 17025 accreditation from an external accreditation body is not allowed access to CODIS by the FBI, making DNA nearly useless. That's on top of annual internal audits and FBI audits.
If you actually have recent personal experience to back up your statements, it has to be from somewhere outside the USA or some bizarre world lab. It sounds like you're describing the state of affairs 20 years ago or more.
I actually agree that labs should be under independent authority, but only to avoid the appearance of impropriety rather than any evidence of actual issues.
Re:First Step: ban tv (Score:2, Informative)
Beyond reasonable doubt isn't a statistical test. Essentially, if, on the evidence, there is some reasonable and believable explanation other than "the accused did it and is guilty", then there is a reasonable doubt and there should not be a conviction.
By way of example, if I am charged with murder on the basis that I was sleeping with the victim and they found the victim's blood in my car (admittedly, a pretty weak case), a reasonable explanation might be that because we were sleeping together we often drove around in the same car and one day the victim had a nose bleed and bled in my car.
If I relate that version of events and the jury believes that I am or am likely to be telling the truth, that would constitute reasonable doubt as it is an alternate version of events which addresses the evidence against me and does not lead to the conclusion that I did it and am guilty.
Re:Forensic liars (Score:4, Informative)
There is lots of science and studies behind investigating fires. Perhaps you are confused between something you saw on a movie and something you heard in real life.
Probably he was confused between real life and real life in Texas, which probably executed an innocent man (Cameron Willingham) in 2004 based on old standards for point of origin and use of accelerants evidence.