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 sure the dozens of TV shows don’t help this either. Law and Order is never wrong and their science and methods are flawless. Obviously I’m being sarcastic, but I think it clouds the jury’s thought process

>>jdechk+Jc
The original Law and Order was good, not perfect, but quite good. They tried to follow the procedures and most of the proof were real. Each story was original. (IIRC. IANAL. And perhaps a few more disclaimers.)

The spin-offs are bad. The suspects are interrogated until they confess, and nobody cares if they have no lawyer or they use dubios evidence.