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”).
