Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#61

Post by gwright »

giantg2 wrote: post #24
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #11

A lot of what the article is saying makes sense, but I really wish the reporter had pushed a bit harder on Hampikian. He conducted a study to show that mixed DNA analysis can falsely exclude people, but are there similar studies that confirm the complex strategies he's exploring in the Tapp case can't falsely exclude people? "Civil rights advocates object to [familial DNA] because it means that simply being related t…

It doesn't have to be 1-to-1. You can have different standards for offensive vs defensive use of the information. Showing the DNA matches some relative of a different family could be enough to generate reasonable doubt while still being too weak to generate probable cause to arrest or even search others. Frankly, they had no probable cause to compell a DNA sample from that guys son. Probable cause is supposed to be t…

> Probable cause is supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence ..

Really? IANAL, but this sounds like a muddling of what is required for arrest and what is the evidentiary standard for resolving a civil case in the US.

I think realistically the trigger for a search or an arrest is going to be much less than what is necessary to successfully convict in a criminal case or to prevail in a civil case.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#62

Post by SilasX »

jansan wrote: post #31
bradyd wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was also the case where a DNA test of a woman's children showed that they did not share any of her DNA. Social Services was threatening to take them away from her. When she had another child, the court ordered an officer to be present during the birth and collect DNA from both of them at that time. Even still the DNA "proved" she was not the mother. It was only after another similar case was discovered that the…

"Trust the science" always must be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd say it should be more like, "Trust the science, while also being aware of what model and assumptions drive the conclusion, and which inference the science is supporting vs agnostic on." Doesn't fit as well on a t-shirt though.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#63

Post by Zigurd »

dylan604 wrote: post #28
Zigurd wrote: post #2

Evidence handling and testing should not be under the control of police, or even prosecution. Incentives need to be aligned toward justice, not convictions.

Well, if you don't think it should be under control of police or prosecution, who do you suggest needs to do it? The defense? A third party private contractor like Theranos? Who's going to be the ones validating whoever is decided can do the testing?

It's a kind of factoring-out from police, who are often systemically racist and corrupt. factoring-out responses to mental health crises, reducing the amount of armed response, etc. reduces the danger from police violence. Factoring out evidence handling to a separate agency that is just as motivated to prove innocence as guilt would improve the use of forensics, and reduce bad plea deals and prosecutions.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#64

Post by graphe »

huytersd wrote: post #59
jansan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Trust the science" always must be taken with a grain of salt.

The tiniest of grains because chimeras are effectively non existent in the society. This literally works for 99.999999% of people.

How would you know if it isn't tested? It only matters because it was birth related. You could be a chimera your whole life and not know it.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#65

Post by asdfasdfjlk234 »

throw0101d wrote: post #13

See also: > The Phantom of Heilbronn, often alternatively referred to as the "Woman Without a Face", was a hypothesized unknown female serial killer whose existence was inferred from DNA evidence found at numerous crime scenes in Austria, France and Germany from 1993 to 2009. The six murders among these included that of police officer Michèle Kiesewetter, in Heilbronn, Germany on 25 April 2007. > The only connection…

Thank god an innocent person didn't get caught up in this. Imagine getting swabbed with bad technique and then the contamination coming back on you. In fact, that was exactly how they found out-- some man got swabbed and it came back with this woman's DNA.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#66

Post by dylan604 »

Zigurd wrote: post #63
dylan604 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you don't think it should be under control of police or prosecution, who do you suggest needs to do it? The defense? A third party private contractor like Theranos? Who's going to be the ones validating whoever is decided can do the testing?

It's a kind of factoring-out from police, who are often systemically racist and corrupt. factoring-out responses to mental health crises, reducing the amount of armed response, etc. reduces the danger from police violence. Factoring out evidence handling to a separate agency that is just as motivated to prove innocence as guilt would improve the use of forensics, and reduce bad plea deals and prosecutions.

what other agency staffed by whom?

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#67

Post by graphe »

linuxftw wrote: post #25
bnralt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve had numerous cases here where prosecutors declined to press charges or gave a small amount of time as part of a sweetheart plea deal, and the criminal went on and killed someone. We’ve also had cases where the judge let a violent criminal out before trial and they killed someone. Should we make the judges and prosecutors culpable in those situations as well? If you have strong penalties for the criminal justice…

That's not how the justice system is supposed to work. Better to let 10 guilty go free than convict 1 innocent.

What happens when the 10 guilty kill again? Worth it? That's not justice that's a shithole with no cops.

Re: Forensics Gone Wrong: When DNA Snares the Innocent (2016)

#68

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

psunavy03 wrote: post #58
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confessions need to be made inadmissible in court as evidence. All state legislatures have the power to make that so, as does Congress at the federal level. The judicial system could do it too, in theory, but never will. Confessions could still be used by police as leads. While all "eyewitness testimony" is defective evidence, confessions are the most defective of all. Humans have weird psychology, but the psychology…

> Humans have weird psychology, but the psychology around confessions is the weirdest of all. It's why it's been exploited by the Catholic religion (and others). It causes strange (and not always unpleasant) emotions in those confessing, those hearing the confession, and even those confessing falsely. The purpose of confession in the religious sense has nothing to do with the purpose of confession in the judicial sen…

> The purpose of confession in the religious sense has nothing to do with the purpose of confession in the judicial sense.

That's completely irrelevant, if both confessions work the same way. And they do. There's no switch in the human brain that says "this is a judicial confession, be the sharpest least emotional being you've ever been". You may hope that the confession in the judicial sense acts as evidence, but when this clearly fails to be the case, over and over, for decades and centuries, creating a truly unknown and uncountable number of false convictions...

Well, then reasonable people don't whine "but they're supposed to be different!". If you can't see this, then I question your right to sit on a jury. You're simply unsafe for the rest of us to allow you to ever be involved in the process. It's very unfortunate that so many people who should rightfully be institutionalized for feeble-mindedness are allowed to do things like wander freely, vote, and use sharp tools.

Post reply on HN