OpieRadio Logo
Anthony Cumia Show Logo
Jim Norton Logo

Forensic Science = Shit

Discussion in 'Science, Math, History and Language Studies' started by Cunt Smasher, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. Cunt Smasher

    Cunt Smasher Caligula Jr.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    12,806
    Likes Received:
    3,623
    Very interesting read here- lots of people may have been wrongly convicted on forensic science that isn't really science.
    In the American criminal-justice system, where prosecutors regularly battle defense attorneys over what constitutes valid evidence, judges’ rulings on admissibility are the final word. Once a technique has made it into court and survived appeals, subsequent judges, most of whom have no scientific training and little ability to assess the scientific validity of a technique, will continue to allow it by citing precedent. Forensic examiners, in turn, cite precedent in order to claim that their techniques are reliable science. Prosecutors point to guilty verdicts as evidence that the science brought to court was sound. In this circular way, legal rulings—which never really vetted the science to begin with—substitute for scientific proof. This is Frye’s fatal flaw: Nowhere in this process is anyone required to provide empirical evidence that the techniques work as advertised. Frye aimed to keep pseudoscience out of the courts, but instead has helped create the perfect conditions to keep it in.
    In the American criminal-justice system, where prosecutors regularly battle defense attorneys over what constitutes valid evidence, judges’ rulings on admissibility are the final word. Once a technique has made it into court and survived appeals, subsequent judges, most of whom have no scientific training and little ability to assess the scientific validity of a technique, will continue to allow it by citing precedent. Forensic examiners, in turn, cite precedent in order to claim that their techniques are reliable science. Prosecutors point to guilty verdicts as evidence that the science brought to court was sound. In this circular way, legal rulings—which never really vetted the science to begin with—substitute for scientific proof. This is Frye’s fatal flaw: Nowhere in this process is anyone required to provide empirical evidence that the techniques work as advertised. Frye aimed to keep pseudoscience out of the courts, but instead has helped create the perfect conditions to keep it in.
    Using a photograph of the victim’s body and a plaster cast of Stinson’s teeth, dentists testified that the marks matched “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.” The appeals court was convinced by the analysis: “the lateral incisor in the upper jaw was set back from the other teeth; all of the upper front teeth were flared; the lower right lateral incisor was worn to a pointed edge; the right incisor was set out from the other teeth on the lower jaw.” The dentists even compared Stinson’s bite to his twin brother’s. The judges concluded that the “bite-mark evidence in this case was sufficient to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence,” upholding Stinson’s conviction. Twenty-three years later, DNA evidence exonerated Stinson. The 3-D models, the detailed descriptions of his incisors, the “moral certainty” of his guilt—everyone had been convinced. And everyone had been wrong. The scientific tide has since turned. Dentists have recanted their testimony and disavowed the method. The Texas Commission on Forensic Science called for a “moratorium” on bite-mark evidence. A study conducted by the president-elect of the American Board of Forensic Odontology revealed that 96 percent of the time, bite-mark examiners couldn’t unanimously agree on whether a bite mark came from a human, and the organization advised its members not to make identifications based on bite marks alone. And yet Stinson’s case still stands as precedent in Wisconsin courts, meaning other judges can cite it to admit bite-mark evidence. Its use is in decline, but there has never been a single ruling to exclude it.
    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-crisis-of-american-forensics/
     
  2. Mags

    Mags Edgelord
    Donator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    33,825
    Likes Received:
    11,474
    “Forensic Science = Shit”

    Hyperbolic much?

    One declining facet does not make the entire scientific genre “shit”.
     
    TreeFortRichard and Wrecktum like this.
  3. Wrecktum

    Wrecktum Tounge puncher of fart boxes

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,199
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    One guy got falsely imprisoned welcome to Trumps America.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
     
    lajikal likes this.
  4. lajikal

    lajikal Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    15,239
    Likes Received:
    3,763
    Yup. Tanks Trump!
     
  5. Wrecktum

    Wrecktum Tounge puncher of fart boxes

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,199
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    I was being sarcastic.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
     
  6. lajikal

    lajikal Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    15,239
    Likes Received:
    3,763
    Gas chambers is the end goal.
     
  7. Stig

    Stig Wackbag's New Favorite Heel

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Messages:
    80,512
    Likes Received:
    4,353
    What on Our Lord Jesus H. Christ's flat Earth are you people talking about?

    Science. Pfft!
     
  8. d0uche_n0zzle

    d0uche_n0zzle **Negative_Creep**

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    46,190
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    A few state crime labs have lying liars within them. The people convicted by their lies, should get fifteen minutes alone with them.
     
  9. HandPanzer

    HandPanzer in situ

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    44,647
    Likes Received:
    40,761
    Ted Bundy was innocent!
     
  10. Cunt Smasher

    Cunt Smasher Caligula Jr.

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    12,806
    Likes Received:
    3,623
    It's not just one facet, its all of it, and according to the article, its not science. There's no peer review or standards in alot of it. Even in fingerprints there are issues because there's no universal standard.
     
  11. TreeFortRichard

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    10,671
    Likes Received:
    1,933
    If you would like to say "Bite Evidence = Shit"
    "Hair Analysis = Shit"
    But your winning thread title should have been "To a Reasonable Degree of Scientific Certainty, Some Forensics is Bullshit"
    I'll get right on that bandwagon...
    In the real world of science there is no such thing as a degree of scientific certainty...It is or isn't. Gravity will make things fall to the ground...to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty? No...to a 100% certainty...What the fuck is a REASONABLE degree and who decides that? Horseshit I tell you...it is or it isn't...Lay out the % and odds in terms of the population as a whole or STFU...

    John Oliver did a segment on this last year and it's an incredible amount of shit that is piled high and accepted right now..

    https://www.sciencealert.com/john-oliver-has-busted-open-the-misconceptions-behind-forensic-science
     
    Mags likes this.
  12. THE FEZ MAN

    THE FEZ MAN as a matter of fact i dont have 5$

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    40,359
    Likes Received:
    8,380
    I call it “lawyer science” or “science for juries”

    I’ve been embroiled in a debate with these guys on the hugbook
    https://www.vehiclesafetyfirm.com/b...ftermarket-auto-parts-cause-serious-injuries/

    A law firm bought three cars, fitted two with after market parts and one with out aka stock, then smashed them, the problem is the cars are all quite different, yes they are all the same model but, different years different millages and have lived different lives, of course they are going to get various results, and, those variations are within acceptable standards, but, being ambulance chasers they are trying to say that they are right, that aftermarket parts will kill you in an accident. Ignoring that it’s the accident it’s self that killed you, and the parts had little to do with it.

    There is no such thing as 100%
     
  13. Creasy Bear

    Creasy Bear gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
    Donator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    46,925
    Likes Received:
    34,506
    You can't dust for vomit.
     
    TreeFortRichard likes this.
  14. Haeder

    Haeder South Dakota

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    5,567
    Likes Received:
    3,714
    Disagree.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page