COMMENTARY: "Houston ahead of curve in forensic science,"by David A. Harris, published in the Chronicle on January 18, 2013. (David Harris, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School
of law, is the author of "Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists
Science.")
GIST: "In the crucial area of forensic science, Houston is ahead of the curve. A look at the rest of the country on the intersection of law enforcement and science shows that while most police and prosecution agencies generally resist science as it applies to what they do, Houston has taken some rare steps forward.........The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) has been the most vocal critic of the idea of independence for forensic labs. In an official resolution in 2010, the NDAA announced that it would oppose any effort to make laboratories independent of law enforcement. The idea that the people in any organization will attempt to please those in charge - a thoroughly researched form of a standard cognitive bias that can be countered by making labs independent - does not concern the NDAA. And the NDAA's position is not the least bit unusual. The premier crime laboratory in the nation is the FBI's own laboratory, and three years after the Academy report, the FBI has made no move to make the lab independent. Unfortunately, the NDAA's effort to resist recommendations for improving law enforcement investigation based upon scientific work is the norm in most jurisdictions in the country. There are now years of solid, peer-reviewed and published scientific work on the basics of what police do: eyewitness identification, interrogating suspects and using basic forensic science such as fingerprint identification, ballistics and analysis of hair and fibers. Some of this work has been around for decades. It has pinpointed the sources of many errors with these common methods and it has also proposed ways to improve police work in these areas, at relatively low cost. And yet most of law enforcement refuses to change their methods in order to avoid costly errors and wrongful convictions. They ignore the science, saying that they know best and will not be dictated to by a bunch of laboratory eggheads - even in the face of 300 proven wrongful convictions. Thankfully, the leadership in Houston has taken another path with regard to the independence of the crime lab. They have not spent time and energy denying the science that shows, without question, an increased possibility of bias and error when labs are not independent. Instead, they've made a break with the past and will be moving forward into an era of better forensic work. Houston can serve as an example of what kind of progress is possible."
GIST: "In the crucial area of forensic science, Houston is ahead of the curve. A look at the rest of the country on the intersection of law enforcement and science shows that while most police and prosecution agencies generally resist science as it applies to what they do, Houston has taken some rare steps forward.........The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) has been the most vocal critic of the idea of independence for forensic labs. In an official resolution in 2010, the NDAA announced that it would oppose any effort to make laboratories independent of law enforcement. The idea that the people in any organization will attempt to please those in charge - a thoroughly researched form of a standard cognitive bias that can be countered by making labs independent - does not concern the NDAA. And the NDAA's position is not the least bit unusual. The premier crime laboratory in the nation is the FBI's own laboratory, and three years after the Academy report, the FBI has made no move to make the lab independent. Unfortunately, the NDAA's effort to resist recommendations for improving law enforcement investigation based upon scientific work is the norm in most jurisdictions in the country. There are now years of solid, peer-reviewed and published scientific work on the basics of what police do: eyewitness identification, interrogating suspects and using basic forensic science such as fingerprint identification, ballistics and analysis of hair and fibers. Some of this work has been around for decades. It has pinpointed the sources of many errors with these common methods and it has also proposed ways to improve police work in these areas, at relatively low cost. And yet most of law enforcement refuses to change their methods in order to avoid costly errors and wrongful convictions. They ignore the science, saying that they know best and will not be dictated to by a bunch of laboratory eggheads - even in the face of 300 proven wrongful convictions. Thankfully, the leadership in Houston has taken another path with regard to the independence of the crime lab. They have not spent time and energy denying the science that shows, without question, an increased possibility of bias and error when labs are not independent. Instead, they've made a break with the past and will be moving forward into an era of better forensic work. Houston can serve as an example of what kind of progress is possible."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Houston-ahead-of-curve-in-forensic-science-4206722.php
PUBLISHER'S NOTE
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.