What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
57 Comments
- Landthatilove, on 03/26/2009, -1/+50If a government ran CSI unit was required to verify their findings with an independant lab, that would show more justice that a jury blindly believing a state or federal sponsored/owned lab.
- lilamae, on 03/26/2009, -1/+36Law serves criminals, too. No, science is universal and should never be reserved to the purpose of one group only.
- inactive, on 03/26/2009, -1/+32fta: "You'd think that a forensic expert who tells the jury that he testifies f/both defense attorneys AND prosecutors would carry more weight on those occasions when he testifies f/the state. That would show a doctor who testimony follows the science."
One would think. [CAPS MINE] - inactive, on 03/26/2009, -0/+22One major reason why I became a political scientist as opposed to a lawyer is that "winning at all costs" is not a mentality that produces justice ultimately.
It's just amazing to me there's more to learn about justice from watching Batman Begins than by watching the conduct of those fighting crime sometimes. I think the article actually does a good job of staying balanced, implying in places that a state prosecutor doesn't really have a choice in his job. If he doesn't prosecute to the fullest extent possible, he's held accountable. - GroundIsSound, on 03/26/2009, -0/+21and the prison industrial system soldiers on
- Wosat, on 03/27/2009, -0/+20"Law enforcement officers—be they police officers or prosecutors—assume a sort of fraternity that precludes them from criticizing one another."
This needs to be changed. - Midtowner, on 03/27/2009, -0/+18Look up Joyce Gilchrist -- an Oklahoma City Police Department forensic scientist who was caught presenting falsified evidence to the court on numerous occasions. Her testimony had resulted in 23 people being sentenced to death and hundreds if not thousands being sent to prison.
The criminal defense bar is very concerned that these chemists being tied to the cops/DA are not independent and give the state an extremely unfair advantage -- especially when defendants are unable to adequately challenge their findings.
IMHO, it creates a 6th Amendment issue in that without a truly independent lab, the defendant is not really being given an opportunity to confront the witnesses against him as the jury is pretty much going to take whatever the forensics witness says as being gospel truth and the defendant isn't left with a lot of opportunity to directly examine and challenge the evidence (unless he's rich). - inactive, on 03/26/2009, -0/+14There aren't enough doctors to go around, that's another issue:
fta - "The other problem here, as the NAS study points out, is that there is currently a critical shortage of board-certified medical examiners. If every forensic pathologist with a government job or contract were barred from ever testifying for criminal defendants, there wouldn't be many doctors left to testify. The few who were left couldn't possibly testify in every case where they're needed—and in those cases they do take, they could easily be impeached by prosecutors as guns-for-hire." - K4Lic0, on 03/27/2009, -0/+14Guilty or not, everyone deserves the right to defend themselves to the fullest extent and to have a 100% fair trial.
- TSilk, on 03/27/2009, -0/+8If it were truly to be a fair trial science would undoubtedly need to be used to help the accused as well.
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -0/+6It's not going to cost you anything according to the article: the argument is that the ones you have now need their opinion taken seriously.
Reading's good for you. It saves you from embarrassing yourself. - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -0/+6I'm beginning to realize why people troll - the article advances an argument that is actually way too nuanced for them to bother with.
I mean, Mr. Balko in that article doesn't go out of his way to blame prosecutors or cops or juries (he does place blame on a few very unjust scientists). He's stating rather that groups have incentives and ways of doing things, and science - and because science is bound up with the facts, justice - are getting robbed in the current setup. His piece isn't really about blaming anyone or looking for some magic solution: the solutions are obvious, and they're hard work. We need people to take democracy seriously and ferret out already existing corruption and free innocent people. We need to make sure the forensic scientists we have already can express their professional opinion freely. "3 strikes and you're out" is stupid political rhetoric, then. But so is saying "here's tons of money for everything else under the sun" when the administration of justice is a higher priority, and we face a critical shortage of scientific experts we need. - Chairboy, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5Nah, he's a plain old household mutagen.
- K4Lic0, on 03/27/2009, -0/+5It's easy to manipulate DNA? ARE YOU A SUPERHERO?!
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -1/+5I can see why police officers have that sort of fraternity, it makes sense.
Prosecutors may be a different story, but I think I know what's going on: the second you make one accusation, even meaning well, and it turns out not to stick, you wonder what everyone else has had to do to get their job done.
My own thought is we just need to care for justice more as a people. Cops and prosecutors have thankless jobs: the few of the latter that get a high profile and run for office are very few, indeed. It's really impressive that the writer of this article, Radley Balko, took the time to look into these sorts of cases in Mississippi, and he actually helped a lot of innocent people by doing so. We need more people to care on that scale, and not shirk the responsibility. - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4Off-topic -- To all of you who voted this up, and especially those of you who helped me get this FP - thank you all so much.
I've been here for years now and got nothing FP, and you guys who helped get this article started initially weren't to blame. You helped me enormously even in those failed attempts: the difference is between my writing and thought having no audience at all, versus having an audience, however meager it may be. You don't realize how much that means to a writer.
As for this article, it isn't mine, I certainly wish it were. I am thrilled that it is as thoughtful and interesting as it is, and I think it is FP material for any paper around the globe. The topic it covers is a sad one, and part of the reason why it is so sad is that it's about democracy. Somewhere in the notion that government exists to serve us, which is not an incorrect notion, another notion - that maybe gov't has something to do with seeing justice administered properly - has been lost. To me, the stunning thing is that an issue like the one raised here can't come up in a modern campaign. It's just too serious for the electorate, and most political scientists won't lament this state of affairs. They'll defend the public's right to not know as much on these issues, and argue that parties and platforms perform a simplifying function: people can know "Democrats = domestic spending," "Republicans = hawks on foreign policy," etc.
But I think you can see the failure of that logic in an issue like this. Again, thank you all very much. - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -0/+4Did you even read the article? Like, at all?
- Novagenesis, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3Prosecutors are out to get anyone they have enough evidence to convict. If they think you are guilty, their reputation is suddenly and officially on the line to see you convicted, even if reasonable doubt exists.
In fact, a big part of the prosecutor's job is to destroy reasonable doubt, both in the innocent and in the guilty.
The official interrogation technique taught to, and used by, police is proven to drag an inordinately large amount of false confessions out of people, confessions that are proven to carry much more weight in court than they should.
You now have scientists working for the prosecution who will give biased facts, intentionally disregarding an angle because it may imply genuine reasonable doubt on the behalf of the best suspect.
You have a majority of defendants from lower-class society, unable to afford anything but public defense. They certainly can't afford a forensic team...
So the only forensics team on the job is very heavily influenced to IGNORE that second fingerprint found on the scene, to deny that evidence that may well be inadmissible for some reason or another is just fine...
In the end, the same number of guilty people go to jail, but a couple innocent people do as well. What does that have to do with the rights of the victims OR the rights of the criminals?
The Innocence Project has used DNA evidence to exonerate over 200 people who have been convicted. If a forensics team finds evidence a person is innocent of a crime, they should be required to reveal it. Period. - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3Aristotle says you can judge a carpenter based on the house he builds, independent of having specific knowledge of carpentry.
I'd say having scientific experts being able to present their opinion does a world of good. The article is saying that they're not allowed to do that under the current regime. - Thor, on 03/27/2009, -0/+3No!
- smotpoker, on 03/27/2009, -1/+3Perhaps in the few cases where defendants have their own scientists. In the vast majority of cases the defense can't afford any form of expert testimony or scientific analysis. Also, the state pays prosecutors more than public defenders ensuring that they typically get the advantage in any case where the defendant is too poor to hire a private lawyer.
- samsmartjr, on 03/28/2009, -0/+2Considering that public defenders are paid for by tax dollars, I don't see why they can't get access to resources from the state as well.
- Rainemaker, on 03/27/2009, -1/+3Some of my practice consists of criminal defense and while I don't do homicides/rapes or capital crimes, I still have do deal with the county and state ran labs when I'm defending one of my clients for possession or intent to distribute marijuana for example.
FTA:
"Today, far too many crime labs and medical examiners report to the attorney general of their states."
Every crim defense attorney know's the county/state labs are the states very own private pool of experts. This idea is neither new nor shocking. I don't necessarily know that there is cause to be as offended by Mr. Balko's notion as he seems to be. State's attorneys are employed by the State, (your tax dollars) and so are the lab scientists and techs that take a state pay check. I'd honestly be shocked to hear that a county or state lab phd appeared as a defense expert. Now don't get me wrong, the $ involved in acting as an expert witness is considerable, so I understand that notion, but I'm more accustomed to seeing private def counsel using private lab doctors/scientists for defense experts.
What's sad is that Public defenders (who are also payed by your tax dollars) never really get to use the county/state lab employees in the defense of cases. Again, there is the understanding that they are primarily a state's attorneys' asset. However, I digress.
What I think Mr. Balko is getting at is the notion of pure science in the court room. My personal opinion is that Science gets bastardized any time you have an expert walk into a court room, because; A) Experts are hired guns. My expert is going to say what I need him to say (otherwise I wouldn't be presenting his testimony), and your expert is going to say what you need him to say; B) Scientist, MD's, PHD's, Engineer's, "Experts" can "legitimately" argue both sides because of interpretation. You don't ever get scientific-slam-dunk cases in the court room because they plead out way before trial, e.g. if every doctor agrees that the accused had a BAC over .08, I'm not taking that case to fricking trial.
"Reasoning" and "Science" are, and will be, separate and apart in the court room. "Science" is the realm of the experts, and while they can "reason" all they want while they are on the stand, at the end of the day, "Reasoning" in earnest (and by design, for better or worse), is the realm of the jury/judge. - LordBalderdash, on 03/27/2009, -1/+3why bother manipulating dna when it's so much easier to manipulate a jury.
- PopcornDave, on 03/27/2009, -0/+2Perhaps scientific evidence should just be presented as an independent party as results only. That way neither side would be able to sway the jury by their questioning.
- dty2010, on 03/27/2009, -0/+2It's ridiculous that they are more focused on finding somebody guilty than finding who is guilty.
- cmp121cmp, on 03/27/2009, -0/+2"there are many other forensic experts out there who do not have the added credibility of being a sitting medical examiner." The entire point of the United States court system is to give both sides an equal opportunity to present the facts and then have a jury decide if the burden of proof has been met. If the prosecuting lawyer admits that being a sitting medical examiner gives an expert added credibility, then allowing the defense access to such experts is the only fair, and the only just thing to do.
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -1/+3Normally I'm sympathetic to your articles, but I think you're saying this to troll, and it's a disgrace given what the author of the article has accomplished:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131242.html
It's your right to encourage immature discussion. It's my right to say "enough." - directedition, on 03/27/2009, -1/+3But alas! Science is constantly used to support the interests of scientists!
/s - ratherstupid, on 03/27/2009, -0/+2Without reading the article, I'm going to say that science should serve the truth -- regardless of which side ends up winning because of it.
- samsmartjr, on 03/28/2009, -0/+1This shows the problems with our prosecuting attorneys - they'll put people behind bars for another check in their "win" column, regardless of the cost to the innocent. What's scarier is that they work for US, the taxpayers, but use taxpayer money for their own glory, not to help us.
- temujin1234, on 03/27/2009, -0/+1With biased forensics, control of evidence, witness conditioning, etc, trials seem incredibly slanted towards the prosecution.
America has the highest imprisonment rate of any country. I refuse to believe that America has the most wicked citizens of any country. - Midtowner, on 04/01/2009, -0/+1>> No one is stopping the defense from getting their own team of forensic scientists to examine the same evidence.
You have to be kidding. You obviously have zero experience with the justice system. That's fine.
Having your own forensics is going to set you back thousands of dollars. When you can't even afford an attorney and have to depend on the public defender, how the hell are you going to come up with the money to pay an expensive lab? What worked for O.J. doesn't work for everyone else. - cmp121cmp, on 03/27/2009, -1/+2Referring to the accused as "rapists and killers" clearly illustrates why there is an unfair bias against defendants. No one should be considered a criminal until they have been proven guilty in an unbiased trial.
To answer your question: if defendants (innocent people and guilty parties alike) are not given access to unbiased expert witnesses who can verify the findings of state medical examiners, you will save money but sacrifice the integrity of every single trial in which the prosecution calls an expert witness. - serenityhold, on 03/27/2009, -0/+1@lilamae
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Science does not and should not be discriminant between the prosecution and the defendant.
It's only purpose in the justice system is to discern the truth, whether it benefits the state or the defendant. - Shugii, on 03/27/2009, -0/+1Damn straight, why was the comment dugg down? It should uncover the truth, saying that it should only serve the state and not criminals is saying that you're guilty until proven innocent. It should help clear all reasonable doubt.
- Midtowner, on 03/30/2009, -0/+1I think the metaphor has been overextended.
- Troll2, on 03/28/2009, -0/+1What you said makes my brain upset. The DNA is the same in all your cells, bar for some extremely minor and rare somatic mutations. You are relying on hearsay instead of well known scientific facts when you say something that stupid.
- cmp1966, on 03/29/2009, -0/+1The state should be just as happy if the evidence clears the suspect as it is when it convicts since the state should only be seeking the truth. Science should serve the truth. The truth should serve the state.
- Chairboy, on 03/27/2009, -0/+1For the last time, the guy who monologues you while he's making your Jamba Juice _isn't_ a scientist.
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -2/+3All I did was post a factual article. What's your problem with facts?
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -3/+3I'll let this article speak for me. http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-ne ...
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -1/+1Where do people get these ridiculous ideas that courts are anything other than a political, human, flawed institution just like any other? Honestly? Do you guys take the pagan statues holding scales seriously?
- xenmaster4, on 03/27/2009, -0/+0Only if the defendants are allowed to use wizardry.
- inactive, on 03/27/2009, -1/+1That's not true, presumption of guilt is not the opposite of the presumption of innocence, they're different concepts. What presumption of innocence means is that until there has been an adjudication of guilt by an authority legally competent to make the adjudication, the suspect is to be treated for reasons that have nothing to do with the probable outcome of the case (presumption of guilt) as if his guilt is an open question. It would be simply absurd to ignore the highly probable-guilty outcomes that the evidentiary situation presents in the majority of criminal cases...
Presumption of innocence is just sort of a direction to officials about how to proceed, it's not a prediction of outcome at all. - shylove, on 03/27/2009, -1/+1That is the problem with the adversarial justice and legal system. The goal is to win or the goal is the goal. So clearing cases might be more important than justice. Well just suppose someone in your family was raped and killed, would you feel real good about the idea the person they got convicted wasn't the right person and that perhaps they knew all the time it wasn't the right person but wanted to clear the case??? So they tell you the perpetrator was caught but actually they were still running loose, or maybe some wants the reward if there is one, like some of those in Guantanamo, or perhap a guilty party wants to get the heat off them. Then there are the guilt complex confessions and the guilt transference cases.
People can't stand government but all the sudden in wars and enforcements issues they believe everything they hear. The laws are made to protect the innocent not the guilty but everyone likes to claim it is the other way around. Anyone can unintentionally make a mistake but sometimes someone can even intentionally make a mistake because they have some kind of bias or hatred they want to take out on someone. Having to have valid evidence protects everyone.
People like having certainty like watching TV and the bad guy IS the bad guy! But cetainty just because the police says so or because they say they have DNA.? Well DNA is extremely easy to plant so just saying DNA isn't exactly sufficient and DNA is a relatively new thing there may be some unknown peculiarities. There are people with more than one DNA, even a case of a women who gave birth to a baby but a few years later was totd the baby wasn't hers. Not because it was test tube baby or anything but because the place the sample was taken. Some parts of her body had one and some parts had another DNA. Extremely rare they think but I'm not going to explain it, I've forgotten something to do with multiple pregnancies that absorb the other and non identical twins, one of the Discovery Channels had 5 different nighmarish stories related to people in this country that encountered problems due to this.
The parading of war permeates institution in the world and it is not helpful in finding ral solutions to our world's problems and is a manifestion of dominance and submission, self-preservation instincts and territtoriality. -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is