I listened to a report about this yesterday on MSNBC or Fox News – I forget which. New Scientist reports here, and I’m just here to give a hardy amen.
“The basis for sound forensic science is validation,” he says. “A lot of the techniques used today are valid with certain caveats, but we need to go back and lay that sound foundation so these data are more reliable later.”
The report also highlights the disparities between many forensic labs in terms of funding and the quality of the work they do, and recommends mandatory accreditation of labs and certification of individual forensic scientists.
Along with my “amen”, I’ll say further that the system of jury trial, with advocates for state and for defense strutting around like high school debate clubs, is inherently flawed. Facts are very difficult things to evince, and competition between “pro” and “con” with untrained judges to decide is perhaps the worst conceivable method for correctly evincing them.
I do think a jury of peers is the only just method for administering justice. However, the establishment of the facts concerning guilt should be taken out of their hands.
I do think that advocates for the state and for the defense are the only ways to ensure the interests of both. However, their role must be to argue over whether and how guilt accrues based on the facts as established by objective, empirical investigation, and how the accused should be confined and rehabilitated to prevent future harm to society, and what the accused must do in order to make restitution, where possible.
In other words – the idea of an expert “for the defense” or “for the prosecution” is an oxymoron. Experts in establishing fact cannot serve a prosecution against a defendant or vice versa. It violates the nature of the tasks that make them experts.
In other words, fact-finding is best done impartially by people who are best trained in the best methods, and reports should be brought to the jury in summary form with quantitative measures of uncertainty attached.
Standardizing and accrediting crime labs is a great first step. Removing them from police and prosecutorial control is an important second step. And, I hope that will be accomplished. But I hope it doesn’t stop there.
Recent Comments