Hacker News Reader

Comment by phpisthebest | Hacker News Reader

This is like saying "Dont hate the player hate the game"

No I am perfectly capable of rightly placing blame on both. In this context the Cops, prosecutors and judges all have an ethical duty to the truth. All 3 seem to have forgotten that underlying obligation in the system

They want that "win", that conviction, that revenge, or what ever.

So yes I will blame the judge for letting bad "evidence" in that lacks proper foundation, but I will also blame the cop that is presenting the "evidence" and the prosecutor that presented the "evidence"

Our systems have layers for a reason, we can not and should not have to relay solely upon the Judge as the first, last and only line of defense here.

View on HN

I think it's important to note that cops, prosecutors, judges, etc. are trained and encouraged to "listen to the science" and "don't rely on your gut." Of course, many disregard this, due to corruption or other moral failings. But many do follow this advice, and sometimes it results in presenting faulty evidence simply because they have been taught faulty science.

In addition to rooting out corruption and dismantling immoral incentives, we need to seriously re-examine the forensic science that is the backbone of many cases. People--including judges, juries, cops, and lawyers--are far too willing to blindly trust "science," and it can have extremely scary outcomes. We need more replication of studies and better science education for our criminal justice professionals.

the bigger problem is we have lost the true meaning of "science" or rather the "scientific method" as a huge part of forensic "science" has no connection with the "scientific method" upto and including the foundational "science" of fingerprints which is more of interpretive art than science

Too much of science today is Hypothesis -> Gather Data to support, reject any that does not -> Report Conclusions -> Burn Heretics

Also, in the US precedent sets if something is scientific in the eyes of the court, not science.

> In this context the Cops, prosecutors and judges all have an ethical duty to the truth. All 3 seem to have forgotten that underlying obligation in the system

Could you clarify: are you referring to every single member of those 3 groups, or just some?

And if it's just some, then roughly speaking, what fraction do you mean, and what evidence supports that?

Depends on which part of that quote...

I believe every single member of all 3 have an ethical duty to the truth

I think a significant number of all 3 groups have forgotten that, or believe something else take precedent further I believe every member of all 3 groups knows about a co-member of the group that has ignored or violated their ethical duty and looked the other way, or actively covered for that abuse

Reply on news.ycombinator.com