Well thatâs science for you. You can either pencil in the result that your boss wants and go home at five oâclock or stay late doing it right and be called a troublemaker. Also there is the hiring practice of saying âHey this guy is an obnoxious prick, heâd be great at running a lab or a nuclear power plant,â and two years later the guy is writing memos to the staff berating them for using too much toilet paper and mandating that they must start bringing their own.
Holy Mother Hubbard! Thatâs terrible!
These days, if you have hair then the jurors will expect the DNA evidence from the hair follicle.
â
Bite mark evidence and arson forensics are also badly abused whenever a conviction is needed. The arson investigator walks up to a huge pile of smoking ashes and says âThe fire was started with a paper match.â
I am suspecting this is the whole reason the problem is coming to light. Too many prior convictions are being overturned with new DNA testing, and the common denominator may be bogus hair analysis. I guess we can thank the FBI for admitting to this problem, instead of playing dumb and shuffling chairs behind the curtain.
Good thing I didnât have any faith in the American âjusticeâ system, otherwise this would have destroyed it!
And the problem remains, testimony by anyone considered law enforcement or investigation is pretty much believed and almost never subject to perjury or contempt for lying. In the US at least the prosecution is all about finding a suspect, dropping a stack of law books on him for charges, then getting him to plead guilty for reduction in charge.
Who pays? The innocent who have the chutzpah to stand for their innocence in a court where everyone already presumes guilt otherwise charges would not be brought. The innocent actually stand a greater risk of long prison time than the guilty in our broken high 90%s guilty plea or verdict system.
I blame lawyers, judges, and law professors for permitting this system to continue, though electing judges and partisan âtough on crimeâ appointments in an era of such low crime but skyrocketing incarceration do not help.
[quote=âdobby, post:7, topic:55828â]
And the problem remains, testimony by anyone considered law enforcement or investigation is pretty much believed and almost never subject to perjury or contempt for lying
[/quote]People will say literally anything to win even in trivial matters. For instance, in every civil action there is usually someone simply lying their ass off, and when their testimony is discredited everyone just shrugs and moves on. No penalties apply, because 80% of the population would be locked up.
One of the many disturbing things about this story is that hair analysis is only one of 19 forensic disciplines at the FBI. Thereâs no reason to think that the presentations of evidence by any of the other disciplines have been any better.
stop the world, I want to get off.
One of many sad cases. The current governor of Texas, despite evidence from forensics and several experts, decided the manâs case did not warrant closer examination. Add to the insanity our august Supreme Court that doesnât believe that innocence is a reason to cancel an execution. There are way too many examples of how our justice system fails and yet we have irate citizens praising the actions of policemen that lie, plant evidence and/or kill, just because!
When the singularity comes this will be another reason the machines give for getting rid of the untrustworthy humans.
Hereâs a tiny speck of sunshine for everyone bummed out (of flat out super pissed) about testilying coming from every corner of the âcriminal justiceâ system: an officer was fired and <a href=âhttp://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2015/04/20/fired-inkster-cop/26067097/âtarget=â_blankâ>charged with 2 felonies in a non-leathal attack on a âsuspect.â [WARNING - Autoplay. Couldnât find a link without it.]
Ideally, people in law enforcement should dispassionately enforce laws and collect evidence.
What we frequently get instead are people who let their emotions (or their Rambo fantasies) run amok, and collect and/or hand over only that evidence which serves one side or the other (usually the prosecution, unless a fellow officer is in the dock).
As more and more teachersâ unions and corporate unions come under attack, it is the police unions that really should be weakened, so that more bad cops can be fired (or prosecuted, if need be). The wingnuts will never allow that, however.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
