= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MatthewB comments on The things we know that we know ain't so - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (148)
I have had the unfortunate experience to watch, not once, but twice the misuse of forensics to convict someone, in direct opposition to not one, two or three witnesses to the contrary, but four or five people who had testified that a person could not have committed a crime... Yet, the CSI Effect was in full play, and it was not until the arrest of the actual criminal in the first case and DNA exoneration in the second that the people involved were acquitted (and in one case, released. Thankfully after a very short stay in county jail, before they were moved to an actual prison).
My family also has a larger number of lawyers than normal, and this was something that was driven into us at an early age "Forensics are a bunch of BS for the most part". Now, that lesson was also tempered with another side "Forensics are a bunch of BS, Unless they help out your case"
Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. I might be more likely to trust reliable forensic evidence than eyewitness testimony.
I agree, but I think our entire system of Justice is broken. It doesn't rely nearly enough on the right kind of evidence and the term "Peers" (as in jury of your) is all but meaningless.
The fact that it is supposed to deal in evidence is, however, the right place to begin.