Forensic "science" is not Science

[VMI77]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... nvict.html

In 2009, a National Academy of Sciences committee embarked on a long-overdue quest to study typical forensics analyses with an appropriate level of scientific scrutiny—and the results were deeply chilling. Aside from DNA analysis, not a single forensic practice held up to rigorous inspection. The committee condemned common methods of fingerprint and hair analysis, questioning their accuracy, consistent application, and general validity. Bite-mark analysis—frequently employed in rape and murder cases, including capital cases—was subject to special scorn; the committee questioned whether bite marks could ever be used to positively identify a perpetrator. Ballistics and handwriting analysis, the committee noted, are also based on tenuous and largely untested science.

[Dave2]

That article isn't subtle about how "the government will save us", but wow... I wonder how many people have been wrongly convicted based on incorrect forensic analysis? Also, I wonder how often the police and prosecutors get it right despite their flawed procedures?

Incidentally, this is why I think there should be a "no doubt" standard for the death penalty. I don't mind putting someone to death if they've earned it, but there's no coming back from that... The prosecution had better be right.

[cb1000rider]

That article isn't subtle about how "the government will save us", but wow... I wonder how many people have been wrongly convicted based on incorrect forensic analysis?

At least one: Cameron Todd Willingham