Kelly's World

Courtesy of digg today, I discovered this article written by Radley Balko, discussing the ramifications of an emerging view that scientists should only serve the prosecution side in criminal cases.

I have to agree with Balko when he states:

It takes an odd definition of justice to believe that state-paid scientists should only use their expertise to help win prosecutions.

Excuse my righteous view, but isn’t the point of forensic science to uncover the truth, and to use the science available to explain actions as they occured? It would be naive to think it’s not possible for the truth to be manipulated or warped to help strengthen the case of one or another. It scares me to think that the people we’re meant to look to as the front line in our war for a just society, are actually the manipulators themselves.

Think of just how dangerous a “prosecution only forensic science expert” could be. They could paint a picture using evidence that supports the prosecution’s case, and without an expert on the defence’s side who is there to ensure the accuracy or validity of the information? As stated in the article;

“the process of peer review—a fundamental component of the scientific method—actually depends on such criticism.”

I would hate to think of how many people could be in jail right now, wrongly convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, without the evidence or a defence expert to prove otherwise. Especially when you look at the situation pointed out by Balko where Dr. Steven Hayne has been conducting 80 – 90% of the state’s autopsies, when he isn’t even board certified in forensic pathology. How much could he be missing, or interpreting incorrectly?

I think Balko has raised all the important points, it just depends on whether anyone of any value is actually listening. Or more importantly, whether someone will find some moral ground in all of this.

(Selfishly, I can’t help but think “thank god the article is about America, and not Australia”).

I had to write about this because I was so shocked and horrified. Her name is Dani (Danielle), she’s 7, and is the equivalent of a normal 2 year old. The day the police found her she was in an overflowing diaper, with roaches and faeces surrounding her. A rookie police office entered the house where she lived, and promptly returned outside to vomit. A woman from Child Services sat in her car sobbing. The most shocking part of it all? Her mother thought there was nothing wrong.

“I’ve been in rooms with bodies rotting there for a week and it never stunk that bad,” Holste said later. “There’s just no way to describe it. Urine and feces — dog, cat and human excrement — smeared on the walls, mashed into the carpet. Everything dank and rotting.”

Holste was one of the police officers on duty that day.

You have to wonder what kind of people could allow this to happen to a child, how they can think that everything is OK. Having children is a major responsibility – you’re caring and nurturing another human being! You’re raising someone who will one day play a fundamental role in the human race. To allow a young girl to grow up and not know how to interact with people, not know how to receive a hug, or even how to laugh? That’s unforgiveable.

I’m so freaked out about having kids. I know that the day I give birth I will be moulding a child, someone who will later become a reflection of me, my beliefs, my attitudes, everything. I always insist I’m not having children whenever anyone asks. I would prefer to just say “no” and be done with the conversation than to enter into a debate on the topic. I have so much respect for mothers that can raise beautiful amazing people, so caring, so loving.

I know one day my time will come (shhh don’t tell anyone that I finally admitted it), and I know I will deal with it to the best of my ability. I can say with 100% confidence that I will NEVER, EVER raise a child like Danielle. I will never put another human being in that situation. I just hope that when my time comes I have the right support network around me to ensure this child learns to enjoy life as much as I do. I hope that one day Dani finally finds true happiness.

* Text article

* Audio and video

Reading Digg today, I found this article about a police officer who was killed in a car accident while driving to the scene of a police manhunt for an armed robber, regardless of the fact the robber was 30 miles away. Why?

Missouri law allows a felony murder charge when an officer is killed while responding to aid in a felony arrest.

Now given that I’m interested in pursuing a career in justice, I have to say that I can only see more negative outcomes for this law than positive. I really do feel that in this particular case, the defendant had absolutely nothing to do with the accident, given that’s what it was – an accident. The policeman hit a tractor/trailer while swerving to avoid a car that had broken down on the road – the tractor/trailer had stopped to assist the motorist.

I can imagine that there could probably be cases where this law could be appropriate (although any fail to come to mind), and it just really feels like this is a law where the police would just like to blame someone, other than the deceased. This quote sums it up:

“Stallmann was the impetus for all the events,” said Gasconade County Prosecutor Ada Brehe-Krueger. “But for his actions, Trooper Tatoian would not have been killed.”

I mean, c’mon, use common sense. Can you image a police officer saying “if this person hadn’t parked in a car spot over the time limit, requiring a parking fine , then I wouldn’t have got a paper cut while writing out their fine so I should charge them with assault”.

But on another note, did you know that the definition of assault as per the Criminal Code Act of 1899 is:

(1) A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person’s consent, or with the other person’s consent if the consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person’s consent, under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect the person’s purpose, is said to assault that other person, and the act is called an assault.

(2) In this section–

applies force includes the case of applying heat, light, electrical force, gas, odour, or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort.

This means that if someone farts near you, you can claim assault! Hence my boyfriend assaults me several times a day, and every morning routinely. What a bastard!