Blog
Does what the guests on the show say surprise you? Why or why not? If you’ve taken courses in forensics, do you agree with their assessments? Summarize your position briefly. I am surprised by the lack of foundation that we have in forensics. It seems as if this is a field merely in the infant stages despite the fact that we have had our criminal justice system since the late 1700s. While we weren’t in the same place scientifically then, we still use that same due process today to prosecute accused criminals. We are catching so many mistakes today with false evidence, imagine how many innocent people were falsely imprisoned because of bad evidence. I have not taken any forensics courses as of yet (soon to change), but based off of what I have learned from my own personal research, I do agree with their assessments of the type of evidence we have now. Like I said, forensic science is in it’s infancy; there is no way that the methods that we verify as true and solid are actually true and solid. Just because a number is generated from a piece of evidence does not mean that it is right.
If you were being tried for a crime, would you have faith that the evidence would be weighed fairly and honestly? Explain that belief. Based on their commentary, what forms of evidence do you think hold up to scrutiny, and which do not? Justify your responses. Assuming that the evidence is one hundred percent accurate and sound, yes, I would have faith in the jury and judge to try me fairly. However, if there isn’t that certainty, I don’t think I would have that faith. Depending on the type of evidence the prosecution/defendant is proposing, it could be something that is not very sound and solid in the first place. For example, if they tried using bite marks, I would be very worried about my position. In another case, I feel like if it was something like DNA testing or blood sampling, I would have more stock in that evidence. Based off of the commentary, the only form of evidence that I believe is not questionable is DNA testing, blood sampling, etc. For these to be wrong, statistically speaking, is very very unlikely. However, finger print tests are something I believe need to be scrutinized more. I donate plasma each week to biolife and in order to check into our appointments, we have to scan our finger; a window pops up with our name and picture asking “Are you Anna Steffensmeier? Yes or no?” Once as I was checking in, it was not me who popped up, but a completely different girl. I selected no and tried again, and the same girl popped up again. Machines aren’t perfect, I understand, but I was completely shocked that it happened twice. Our fingerprints had to be very similar in order for this to happen more than once. To me, this shows that finger prints aren’t always a solid form of evidence and in a criminal case, should be criticized.
Do you think the criminal justice system is living up to the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”? Support your opinion with ideas or quotes from the podcast. From a juror’s perspective, I do not think we have ever lived up to “innocent until proven guilty”. I would like to think that we don’t use stereotypes in this world, but I would also like to think unicorns to exist and that pigs fly. We look at a proposed criminal with a bad record and automatically make assumptions about this person, despite what evidence might say. Take a look at the short story Twelve Angry Men, I think it explains the bias and stereotypes within our criminal justice system so well. Not only this, but the attorney that called and voiced his opinion on the show said that “he has dealt with cases where the crime lab came up with bogus results to get a conviction. You can clean up the science all you want, but if you hae bogus lab reporters then it doesn’t even matter in the end.” This is completely true. A lawyer may make false conclusions from a piece of evidence, but it isn’t their fault if the crime lab does the science wrong on purpose. It is crazy what measures people will go to to win a case. Dr. Bell came up with a great point that we need a crime lab that is independent of the court; it analyzes evidence based on what is there and is not influenced by the prosecution or the defense. This way the evidence that is found can be analyzed properly and without bias. With sound evidence, only then can we come close to living up to “innocent until proven guilty”.
Notes
luminal is a compound that interacts with hemoglobin and lights up when there is a trace of blood found Depending on the type of test done, it can take up to several days for a test to actually get done. Even longer for the criminal justice system to take what is found with that evidence and act on it. Bite marks- discreditted as of now. The original assumption was that bite marks have a unique indention, but have been disproven pretty much Finger prints- disciplnes for analyzing criminal prints originated from a science background and came into an applied forensic study while firearms and bullets originated in a forensic science atmosphere. Two very different heritages FBI- overstated accuracy of hair samples that benefitted the prosecution. shows a bias. law enforcement uses a method to identify/prosecute a suspect. They use this method to validate what they believe is right and then start making statistics up in order to prove their case and prosecute the suspect. They throw out numbers saying I’ve been in this field for X amount of years and it’s right that we do this method versus another because I know it works. Law enforcements has been using these wrong methods for years and it is hard for them to give up these practises because they feel that they are right. They can’t appreciate it when they have their method criticzed. They did not arrive in science so it is hard to understand why or how their method does, or does not work. There has been a lack of imperial studies done to prove our methods that we use today. Police officer called and does not support canceling the oversight committee Do you know bad science affecting criminal cases? Sophia Silva Sister’s case. Fiber evidence was used to indicate a suspect after silva was killed. Asked the court to appoint an expert and was turned down. The wrong criminal was prosecuted and then two other girls were kidnapped and killed by the same criminal. The FBI got involved and it turned out that the fiber evidence wasn’t a match to the criminal who was prosecuted. Convincing the court that scienctific evidence should be questioned is challenging because denying numbers is hard. It may look like hard evidence, but in reality it is not. You have to have an expert to show that you need an expert in court. Courts tend to not rely on newspaper articles and reports to look at why their conclusions may be wrong. all criminals have their miranda rights, but do not have the right to scientific review <—- SO TRUE AND NEEDS TO CHANGE Most cases are settled by plea bargaining and most defense attorneys don’t have time to talk to an expert. Retired attorney called from NC- Crime lab came up with bogus results to get a conviction. You can clean up the science all you want, but if you hae bogus lab reporters then it doesn’t even matter. Federal level agency that would be responsible for forensic science that is independent of prosecution and defense because it needs a champion where it is scientifically independent from the jurisdiction. Give more accreditations/certifications to laboratories to imporve the quality of the “work” coming out of the lab.