Hacker News Reader

Comment by Snoozus | Hacker News Reader

Why don't they just redo the analysis with a few other software packages?

The defendant has a right to “confront” their accuser. So when an algorithm is the one doing the accusing it seems only fair that the defendant should be able to understand how and why the algorithm arrived at that conclusion. Running the analysis through every software package available wouldn’t satisfy the defendant’s 6th amendment rights.

It wouldn't satisfy them, but if one of the software packages gave a different answer they can't both be correct.

Or worse, they could give the same incorrect answer.

That would help with variance, but not with bias.

Business incentives presumably reward all such companies for helping the police get convictions, so it doesn't seem a far-fetched concern.

Who is "they"

Probably "they" refer to prosecution. And yeah, why is prosecution going with that lab/software only? One reason is probably the DNA available for more testing is not enough / one testing could been done reliable with DNA taken from crime scene. Other reason might be behind the scenes incentives, which seems is the defense strategy here

> why is prosecution going with that lab/software only?

Presumably becquse that lab/software gave them the answer they were looking for.

Why pay for even more lab/software testing when you've already got what you want (especially when it's a possibility that the additional testing will contradict the first)?

Even if you had plenty of DNA material, going with multiple labs comes with a risk that one of them comes with a "no match" result - and that is something that is supposed to be disclosed to defense as potential exculpatory evidence - and is a nice source of reasonable doubt for a jury. It's something that is terribly inconvenient for the prosecution when someone has already been charged with the crime...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com