Skeptics might consider yet another battleground of importance, our courts.

[skeptigirl]

Science wrong on arson evidence for years. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061209/ap_on_sc/arson_on_trial)Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that the prosecution's case was built on bad science.

A definitive count isn't possible, but the best estimate of leading fire investigators across the country is that there could be hundreds of mistaken arson prosecutions, all built on the same ideas that were uprooted more than a decade ago.

The new arson science could become the most powerful tool to reveal wrongful convictions since DNA testing began overturning rape and murder cases in 1989. So far, 186 men and one woman have been freed because of the new technology.

This isn't just about correcting the historical record. Not only are people behind bars because of faulty arson investigative techniques, others may be on their way. Critics say that some investigators, in rural counties and big cities, resist the new science and prosecute cases based on discredited methods.

An appeal last spring sought a new trial, arguing that scientific advances in arson investigation essentially created new evidence.

Christine, Monroe County's district attorney, did not return repeated phone calls. An assistant argued before the court that the new science was, in effect, simply "two expert witnesses that have opposing views." A Pennsylvania state court agreed and rejected Lee's claim.

Another is the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in Texas after courts there refused to consider his claims of innocence. A panel of experts hired by The Innocence Project, known for its work using DNA to expose wrongful convictions, concluded that the fire that killed Willingham's children was accidental.

It's a nightmare, where a defendant's truthful account is held up as lies because the court's accepted expert is scientifically wrong, says Barry Scheck, an attorney and co-founder of The Innocence Project. "We need a systemic re-examination, an audit, of these old arson cases," he says. While skeptics are worried about school science classes and political anti-science activity, maybe we also ought to worry as much about the lack of science recognition in the "jury of one's peers" system.

20-20 tonight profiled a case where a supposed rape murder suspect's semen didn't match the victim but the jury was convinced by witness testimony instead. I couldn't believe these idiots convicting a man of murder because they believed his ex-wife (of all people) was telling the truth. The jurors interviewed said they could tell the ex-wife was truthful. The same jurors ignored the fact the semen from the victim was sterile and the suspect was not. I realize 20-20 probably distorted the version of the trial but still, gut feeling vs clinical evidence?

It seems so many people are just idiots. They're everywhere. They convict innocent people or let the OJs go because richly paid lawyers are better at persuasion than schools are at educating people about science.

I'm not saying science in the schools and anti-science in government aren't critical issues. But I wonder if we are giving enough weight to the problem of how the courts weigh in on science. Currently, either side can bring in a expert who really isn't and the jury is screened specifically to weed out anyone who has any prior knowledge about the science involved in a case. The results have been very poor outcomes.

We have forensic evidence that is either given too much or too little weight and the science of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is practically a taboo subject. It's apparent the system resists change. But innocent people are dying, literally.

[Dave1001]

Good point, as a law student, it's shocking the degree to which our justice and legal system doesn't fully incorporate empiricism to determine the "facts" of a case -as well as to determine how to decide cases in terms of policy. The legal profession seems to be lagging far behind medicine and even business education in this regard.

[Zep]

Do you not have a "friend of the court" system? That is, people who are reputable experts in a subjects who are effectively neutral to the case, and who can (at the request of the court, not the prosecution or defense) provide detailed explanations of scientific and other material to the court and jury.

[Dave1001]

Do you not have a "friend of the court" system? That is, people who are reputable experts in a subjects who are effectively neutral to the case, and who can (at the request of the court, not the prosecution or defense) provide detailed explanations of scientific and other material to the court and jury.

yes, but it's informal. perhaps it should be called "friend of the judge".:p

[skeptigirl]

A friend of the court brief is not available in every case.

Also, judges often take a strictly legal interpretation of the law in an appeal. There have been people who had 100% exculpatory evidence which appeals judges completely ignore if some procedural rule doesn't allow grounds for an appeal. DNA is one such exculpatory evidence that appeals judges have ignored even when the wrong man has been in jail for years. It's quite disturbing.

Prosecutors as well, sometimes care more about the conviction than getting the right perpetrator. Either that or some prosecutors just remain in denial when someone they believe to be guilty has clear evidence they are not.

[Schneibster]

This is the result of ignoring science education, nothing more. This stuff is not, well, rocket science. This is the reason why we have so much trouble with the US government ignoring science on multiple fronts. Meanwhile, the problem is perpetuated because people who might otherwise teach children are discouraged from doing so by the low salaries and other employment problems they encounter; too many students are in the classroom; and the materials they have to work with are outdated or nonexistent.

Worst of all, there is a religious segment of the population that actively discourages their children from learning science, because it does not agree with the 3,000 year old book by the sheep herders.

Until these problems are dealt with, we will have people who will take advantage of them for various reasons of self-enrichment, self-aggrandizement, and other selfish motives, and justify it politically. It's disgusting, but how to break the cycle?

[athon]

The entire 'judged by your peers' approach is outdated and redundant. I'm all for profressionally trained juries who are taught the skills needed to make such judgements.

I don't see this happening any time soon.

Athon

[clarsct]

Very much outdated.

At one time, if you walked into an average home, you would see essays from Emerson and Maybe even Darwin's famous book, as well as other works of the day in the living room, or parlor. The main form of entertainment on a daily level was debating these points. I'm speaking from an 'Age of Reason' viewpoint.
Even a relatively shabby house would have books and pamphlets, for the perusal of visitors.

I've often wondered if a 'open jury' system might do better, where you have a panel of judges allowed to ask questions and have more direction over the proceedings.

Just a point of view.

[UnrepentantSinner]

We live in a society where "Cut and Run" re-elects a buffoon of a president. Is it any surprise that "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" springs a murderer?

I knew our legal system was in trouble when Dr. Suess trumped DNA evidence in the O.J. trial.

[TheChadd]

These sort of cases do happen alot and if you get a good lecturer they'll often highlight them. In one of my earliest classes there was a huge focus on the need for lawyers to understand science this definately underscored for me (and I hope for the others in my class) how interwoven the two professions really can be.

I must say though, most of the lawyers I know (here in sydney at least) are quite a skeptical bunch...

[athon]

Very much outdated.

At one time, if you walked into an average home, you would see essays from Emerson and Maybe even Darwin's famous book, as well as other works of the day in the living room, or parlor. The main form of entertainment on a daily level was debating these points. I'm speaking from an 'Age of Reason' viewpoint.
Even a relatively shabby house would have books and pamphlets, for the perusal of visitors.

I've often wondered if a 'open jury' system might do better, where you have a panel of judges allowed to ask questions and have more direction over the proceedings.

Just a point of view.

Not meaning to take issue with your point (which I agree with), once if you walked into your average home, there'd be no reading material at all. 'Most' people belonged to uneducated working classes. The thing was, the working classes weren't part of educated society, hence paid little attention to its mechanations. They weren't on juries, they didn't vote, they were concerned mostly with where food came from and how to find moments of enjoyment in otherwise difficult lives. The world was run by an educated elite, and it is they who are depicted personally in the history books.

Today, democracy says everybody has a say. Which is fine until you mix into that a good dose of post-modern philosophy which is adamant that all people's opinions are equally valuable, regardless of their ability to think or reason.

I sure as hell don't think we should go back to a time when class structure defined how society ran, but to place all backgrounds on an equal footing without view of level of education or ability to think rationally has caused its own problems.

Athon

[Hamradioguy]

Science wrong on arson evidence for years. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061209/ap_on_sc/arson_on_trial)While skeptics are worried about school science classes and political anti-science activity, maybe we also ought to worry as much about the lack of science recognition in the "jury of one's peers" system.

I wonder if we are giving enough weight to the problem of how the courts weigh in on science. Currently, either side can bring in a expert who really isn't and the jury is screened specifically to weed out anyone who has any prior knowledge about the science involved in a case. The results have been very poor outcomes.

Bob Park touches on this a bit in his excellent, "Vodoo Science", although he's really addressing judges and the idea of judges as "gatekeepers" to keep junk science out of the courtroom. The Daubert decision helped in that respect, but it doesn't address the problem of jurists who lack both an understanding of science and critical thinking skills. I'd say it would be a rare court case these days that did not require solid knowledge in both areas.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good topic.

And not just with the junk science (and the typical battle of prostitutes--I mean "experts").

In more general terms, courts also treat eyewitness accounts as very strong evidence. Science tells us that memory is incredibly fickle--easily manipulated.

I don't believe, for example, that anyone can really give a 100% positive ID of a person they only saw once before.

In places other than courts, we call it anecdotal evidence.

I certainly wouldn't want my freedom (or my life) to depend on something like that.

[a_unique_person]

I've often wondered if a 'open jury' system might do better, where you have a panel of judges allowed to ask questions and have more direction over the proceedings.

Just a point of view.

I have been on jury duty twice. It was only after the first trial, when we really had a hard time working out what was going on, that we found out we could as questions ourselves, via the jury foreman. Sneaky.

The second time there was no need to ask questions, it was pretty open and shut. Although I only found out afterwards, because I met the tipstaff on the train, that the accused suffered a mental illness.

[Cuddles]

The issue of investigating arson was reported in New Scientist on 4th November (http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg19225761.100-arson-evidence--shot-down-in-flames.html). It was answered in a letter (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225800.600-shot-down-in-flames.html) a couple of weeks later, pointing out that the criticism was based on practice 30 years ago and, in Britain at least, current practice is of a much higher standard.

Edit : For the record, I entirely agree that the justice system is horribly flawed, but it seems that arson is no longer one of the main problems for junk science.

[drkitten]

Not meaning to take issue with your point (which I agree with), once if you walked into your average home, there'd be no reading material at all. 'Most' people belonged to uneducated working classes. The thing was, the working classes weren't part of educated society, hence paid little attention to its mechanations. They weren't on juries, they didn't vote, they were concerned mostly with where food came from and how to find moments of enjoyment in otherwise difficult lives.

Er, no. The whole point of the jury system is that the jury was not part of the educated elite; if you committed a crime in the village of Binding-on-the-Crotch, the people who sat in judgement on your guilt or innocence were the uneducated working-class farmers of Binding-on-the-Crotch.

In theory -- at least, the theory current at the time -- you shouldn't needcomplicated philosophy and theology and stuff like that to decide simple questions of fact. If the "facts" are so complicated that Pug the Weaver can't understand them, then why should one believe that you understand them, either?

I'm not sure the current system of "duelling experts" is substantially better or more just. If I can't understand the facts under discussion, how am I supposed to evaluate the credibility of the experts?

[Mojo]

If you want a case involving "duelling experts", you could have a look at this one (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2003/1376.html), and paragraph 53 in particular. Fortunately a jury was not involved.

At the appeal (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1148.html) (upholding this decision) one of the judges commented: Dr Donegan's report was based on no independent research, and most of the published papers cited by her in support of her views turned out either to support the contrary position or at least to give no support to her own. Not to mince words, the court below was presented with junk science.

[Dave1001]

This is the result of ignoring science education, nothing more. This stuff is not, well, rocket science. This is the reason why we have so much trouble with the US government ignoring science on multiple fronts. Meanwhile, the problem is perpetuated because people who might otherwise teach children are discouraged from doing so by the low salaries and other employment problems they encounter; too many students are in the classroom; and the materials they have to work with are outdated or nonexistent.

Worst of all, there is a religious segment of the population that actively discourages their children from learning science, because it does not agree with the 3,000 year old book by the sheep herders.

Until these problems are dealt with, we will have people who will take advantage of them for various reasons of self-enrichment, self-aggrandizement, and other selfish motives, and justify it politically. It's disgusting, but how to break the cycle?

That's one possible theory. But I think other possible theories, like most of the population is too stupid (and by that I mean the hardware, not the software) to engage in the necessary critical thought to take a strictly empirical approach to analyzing evidence in many court cases, also seems plausible.

Either way, I don't think we have to wait until most Americans either get a good science education or brain transplant to make the court system work effectively. Evidence should be determined by experts, or at least juries of experts, in my opinion, not ordinary shmoes off the street. But unfortunately that's only the tip of a very big iceberg of irrationalism in the judicial system.

So much of the common law is based on irrational notions, from the "reasonable person" standard, to the punitive theory of justice, in my opinion.

[Dave1001]

Good topic.

And not just with the junk science (and the typical battle of prostitutes--I mean "experts").

In more general terms, courts also treat eyewitness accounts as very strong evidence. Science tells us that memory is incredibly fickle--easily manipulated.

I don't believe, for example, that anyone can really give a 100% positive ID of a person they only saw once before.

In places other than courts, we call it anecdotal evidence.

I certainly wouldn't want my freedom (or my life) to depend on something like that.

Great example of irrationality in the legal system.

[Dave1001]

These sort of cases do happen alot and if you get a good lecturer they'll often highlight them. In one of my earliest classes there was a huge focus on the need for lawyers to understand science this definately underscored for me (and I hope for the others in my class) how interwoven the two professions really can be.

I must say though, most of the lawyers I know (here in sydney at least) are quite a skeptical bunch...

I find most American lawyers to be argumentative, which isn't close to being the same as skeptical.:p

[Yahzi]

Not meaning to take issue with your point (which I agree with), once if you walked into your average home, there'd be no reading material at all. 'Most' people belonged to uneducated working classes. The thing was, the working classes weren't part of educated society, hence paid little attention to its mechanations. They weren't on juries, they didn't vote, they were concerned mostly with where food came from and how to find moments of enjoyment in otherwise difficult lives. The world was run by an educated elite, and it is they who are depicted personally in the history books.

Today, democracy says everybody has a say. Which is fine until you mix into that a good dose of post-modern philosophy which is adamant that all people's opinions are equally valuable, regardless of their ability to think or reason.

I sure as hell don't think we should go back to a time when class structure defined how society ran, but to place all backgrounds on an equal footing without view of level of education or ability to think rationally has caused its own problems.

Athon
Exactly what he said.

Exactly.

[athon]

Er, no. The whole point of the jury system is that the jury was not part of the educated elite; if you committed a crime in the village of Binding-on-the-Crotch, the people who sat in judgement on your guilt or innocence were the uneducated working-class farmers of Binding-on-the-Crotch.

In theory -- at least, the theory current at the time -- you shouldn't needcomplicated philosophy and theology and stuff like that to decide simple questions of fact. If the "facts" are so complicated that Pug the Weaver can't understand them, then why should one believe that you understand them, either?

I'm not sure the current system of "duelling experts" is substantially better or more just. If I can't understand the facts under discussion, how am I supposed to evaluate the credibility of the experts?

Point made and taken. I actually knew that, and am embarrassed I wrote the 'not on juries' part. The part of my brain which stores that information came up with a 404 when I was thinking of what to write, obviously.

Athon

[skeptigirl]

The issue of investigating arson was reported in New Scientist on 4th November (http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg19225761.100-arson-evidence--shot-down-in-flames.html). It was answered in a letter (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225800.600-shot-down-in-flames.html) a couple of weeks later, pointing out that the criticism was based on practice 30 years ago and, in Britain at least, current practice is of a much higher standard.

Edit : For the record, I entirely agree that the justice system is horribly flawed, but it seems that arson is no longer one of the main problems for junk science.
So how did/does the UK deal with people still in jail convicted when junk arson science was used in the past?

[skeptigirl]

Great example [eyewitness testimony] of irrationality in the legal system.Not only that, but with the number of people convicted on eyewitness testimony who were later found not guilty when DNA evidence was tested, think how many people that represents who are innocent but convicted while there is no DNA to verify or refute the eyewitness testimony. It isn't hard to show there are likely thousands in jail today who are innocent. And there have in all probability been innocent people put to death.