zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who in 1971 suggested the cause might be violent shaking" (emphasis mine).

>>GlumWo+lb
I'm afraid the whole field of medicine moves forward by screw ups and fixes, and as such forensics are just another place.

In "Factfulness" the late Hans Rosling mentions how he spent years telling people to not keep babies sleeping on their back, based on science were people believed babies might suffocate more easily.

This turned out to be the opposite of truth, babies are more likely to die when sleeping on their belly. For years, doctors , him included, may have indirectly killed babies trying to save them.

OTOH, the unreliability of our tools makes a strong case against the death penalty, IMO.