Remember: CSI is a fictional television series
by digby
For anyone who cares about criminal justice issues, this piece by Radley Balko on the history of forensic science and the shocking lack of scientific basis for much of what currently rely upon is a must read. With the exception of DNA matching, which was developed in scientific circles rather than criminal justice labs, they really aren't especially reliable. There's no doubt that people are in prison today based on junk science and the odds that we haven't executed an innocent person based on this flawed "expert testimony" are astronomical.
His article comes on the heels of this piece from the over the week-end which I meant to flag:
Justice Department officials now concede that “an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”
It doesn't mean that all the defendants were innocent of course. But it probably means a few of them were. I guess that most people don't care about that until they find themselves in the crosshairs of a powerful state police apparatus. It could happen.
Balko reports that there is some movement afoot to create and independent scientific board to evaluate these forensic techniques since judges are in no position to evaluate their scientific merit and neither are juries. (Or prosecutors, for that matter.) All the incentives in our system tilt toward prosecutors and professional government experts creating a sense of scientific consensus when none actually exists because expert scientists outside of law enforcement have never tested the theories. Balko reports on dozens of so-called scientific tests that have been debunked, including blood-spatter and bite-mark analysis. Even fingerprints are being looked at with a jaundiced eye these days.
.