Dubious Justice and Scientistic Forensics

I just read a very interesting article on the poor quality standards of forensic evidence developed in the US law enforcement system. I believe this report strikes at the heart of several beliefs that have greatly harmed American society.

First, the entire mythic polarized arrangement of cops and robbers, drummed into our heads by 'entertainment' and news, constantly. The consensus view holds police, especially investigators, to use rational, objective means for the good of society to determine the truth and identify crime. We see that this end justify dubious means.

Second, and more fundamental, we have a faith in a justice system that should arrive at fair decision - one that should be taken as final. Unfortunately, much of the process is a charade: expert witnesses extol the virtues of forensic techniques to juries without any reason to doubt their credibility. Here, a group of scientists have shown that there is reason to doubt, and not all methods should be accepted as evidence. The police system itself mobilizes to defend its questionable behavior.

Third, most fundamental - American society exhibits a dichotomy, much of the prevailing Folk reviling experts, scientists, and overtly rational discourse on the one hand, while at the same time, nurturing a belief that the basic institutions and instruments of power are rational and abide by the rules. What we see is that the mixture of disdain for methodical restraint required for objectivity and fairness does not mix at all well with a mentality that values 'setting faith into action' more than 'pursuing results only according to the modest limits our current methods afford. The result: Justice proceeds without its blindfold, steered by many who have very dubious morality and little restraint. This process however remains invisible and unmentionable, as most folks are deeply invested in the first two beliefs.

I recall the denouement of the OJ Simpson trial. For most white Americans, the verdict was a travesty of justice. For many others the case really called the LAPD to account. Their methods and values clearly showed that the rules of evidence and procedure could be called into doubt. OJ had better lawyers than most. In general, cases using forensic evidence proceed without significant challenge - even where this is due. The important point to note is that there is a divided attitude towards investigative neutrality. Some portions of society are quite comfortable with the above three myths (black and white ethics, objective results, faith-based nature of investigative procedures (as it is taboo to argue with forensics too hard.) Others view the justice system with enormous hostility and suspicion. For them, the opposite myths may apply (the system as irredeemably corrupt, the process as subjective and biased, the investigators themselves suspect and entirely non-credible).

Crimes occur. Investigations follow. Clearly someone did do something, at some time, to someone - that is, there is some truth even if it is hard to piece together. Forensic methods, if properly applied (to our best standards of treatment and interpretation of evidence), can serve as one of the most powerful tools to piece together this truth. While we see problems in the justice system, this is not an either/or question. We must strive to improve our methods and hold the investigators accountable to the highest standards - for they are fallible, the process of interpreting evidence is far from cut and dry, and the investigators themselves may have objectionable motives and operate outside of the law.