The System is Broken
Forensic science is badly in need of reform. Here are some suggestions.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ron Paul's wife is in the hospital:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hMxQKsi9x1g_L-ScJuNwrj_msxVwD92GDH7G2
Best wishes to her!
a simple reform would be the use of blind testing. iow, the analyst would be presented with the evidence and (say) twenty tests, all coded and randomized, one of which is the suspect. if the analyst can match evidence and suspect, that alone will reduce the error rate to below 5%.
Radley is my hero.
Topically...
(Not my fault if the NY Times wants you to log in.)
Reform? We just need people that know what they are doing, thats all.
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
http://fieldsobrietytest.info
The article's criticism of forensics and the proposed solutions are all sound, but I was a little confused when it suggested that our justice system is outdated and hasn't kept up with scientific developments.
Which developments in the world of science have rendered making arguements before a jury outdated?
Scientific evidence is fallible, isn't it? Theories are revised continually in light of new information, and everything?
I would hope that we keep using logical reasoning in a courtroom, not encourage law enforcement to confuse juries even more with the idea we can prove guilt by shining a purple lamp over a cumstain.
good article, good suggestions, Radley
Hayne's findings in an autopsy seems to be jusstt whatever the prosecutor orders. Hayne and his sidekicks, the prosecutors, ousted Dr. Emily Ward when she disagreed with the "powers that be" and unless Mississippians unite to be heard, Hayne'sa next victim could be you or your loved one. It is time the 'Little Rascals' be disbanded or disbarred! Oh, sorry, I guess I'm behind times, Hayne's is looking for a nother state to victimize the poor people. My son, Henry Moses, is in Parchman for life because of Dr. Hayne's testimony. He was indicted for his wife's death, not murder. He and she were really bad alcoholics. She was in a car accident and two and one half months later she died. She had broken ribs, badly crushed hip. She was so drunk at the time that surgery couldn't be done until the next day. In Haynes autopsy he did not mention a scar on her body from hip surgery, nor did he mention that 80% of heer liver cells were deead. Two ER doctors that saw her in ER three days prior to her death testified that she died from kidney failure and liver failure due to drinking so much alcohol and taking so many tylenol. My family has tried so hard to get people to listen to us. There are more than one Henry Moses in these MS prisons. Please God, help my son.