In light of the NSA report criticizing the state of forensic science [See April 15 SCOIDBlog], some scientists are taking a closer look at the reliability of widely accepted tests.
The New York Times has a report on this today. Plugging Holes in the Science of Forensics,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/12fore.html?ref=science.
One interesting bit is on examiner bias. One researcher "has conducted studies that show that when working on an identification, fingerprint examiners can be influenced by what else they know about a case. In one experiment, he found that the same examiner can come to different conclusions about the same fingerprint, if the context is changed over time."
So knowing too much about a case can influence examiner results. We see something like this with photo lineups where the officer knows who the suspect is and then unintentionally tips off the witness. Thus, the need for double-blind lineup procedures. Likewise, maybe our state crime labs need to be independent, financially and otherwise, from law enforcement so to minimize pro-prosecution examiner bias.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment