tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post6729335790383995424..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Faulty ForensicsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-52798907064749442542007-04-19T15:58:00.000-07:002007-04-19T15:58:00.000-07:00If only ethical standards and guidelines were as e...If only ethical standards and guidelines were as effective as actual economic incentives. I think you underestimate the amount of room for subjectivity there is in forensic testing. There's not always a simple yes/no answer or a simple number to report. Forensic technicians have to use their judgment to decide how "close" a match is. I think this is a place where the TV crime dramas get it right; watch an episode of Law & Order to see how the prosecutors negotiate with the forensic technicians about how they will characterize their findings. And whether they get continued business will depend in part on how often they are willing to corroborate the prosecution's theory. While some technicians may already be corrupt, and others incorruptible, I think the real issue is those on the margin who can be influenced to slide along the scale.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-9325721799441819102007-04-19T15:50:00.000-07:002007-04-19T15:50:00.000-07:00But Glen, the forensic field tries to be neutral w...But Glen, the forensic field tries to be neutral with technicians adhering to ethical rules and standards similar to the attorneys that they serve. The fact here is that only the analysts who are already corrupt will be swayed by the economic incentives. The assumption you seem to be making is that by virtue of working for the prosecution, the analysts are presupposed to be on the prosecution's side, and on that I disagree.abshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00452476483077661269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-14132883591630066012007-04-18T17:03:00.000-07:002007-04-18T17:03:00.000-07:00Abs -- if you think that "the [lab] people will al...Abs -- if you think that "the [lab] people will always be swayable to one side or another," then I think we're agreeing. All I'm saying is that it's totally predictable which direction they will be swayed, given who's giving them their business.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-7854630185946613822007-04-18T16:23:00.000-07:002007-04-18T16:23:00.000-07:00I'm not really sure it follows that, "[w]hen foren...I'm not really sure it follows that, "[w]hen forensic scientists work exclusively for the prosecution, we should expect errors and abuse."<BR/><BR/>I think that when ANYBODY conducts such investigations we must expect errors, but abuse is a totally different question. Obviously, the adversarial legal system has its disadvantages in the sense that supposed 'experts' will testify to the facts from one point of view, but that's why we have cross examination.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that no matter how impartial we make the labs that conduct these investigations, the people will always be swayable to one side or another. If the investigators are already inclined to conspire with one side, it's just a matter of economics.<BR/><BR/>I'm in total favor of allowing the defense to conduct their own tests using their own experts which may or may not come to different conclusions. One way to do that may be to force the government, if they want to introduce DNA evidence, to pay for defense's lab fees at a lab of their choosing.abshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00452476483077661269noreply@blogger.com