Bite mark analysis has no basis in science, experts now say. Why is it still being used in court? - eviltoast
  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    So much of it. Blood splatter analysis, voice print analysis, handwriting analysis, a lot of analyses involving firearms, etc.

    • vrek@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      Witness testimony is also known to be flaky. We are entering a world where video can be faked(probably easy to tell currently if it’s fake but in a few years…).

      Short of a confession(which honestly has its own concerns regarding how it was obtained, knowledge of their rights etc) , what are actually good evidence of someone’s guilt?

      I can see possession crimes(the officer searched you and found meth hidden inside your sock) or financial (you claimed to have this asset and used it as collateral for a loan but that asset really belonged to your sister’s husband) but for example rape and murder cases what can be used as solid evidence?

      • PineRune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Posession crims can easily be planted by the officer or someone else. The current US prison system is based around getting tax money for locking people up, so any evidence will be questionable while that money incentive is in play.

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        What’s even worse is that there is evidence that people trained to be eye witnesses, like police, actually perform worse than the general population because they over estimate the reliability of their memory due to said training.