TheAgitator.com
My Fox column…
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009…this week is on forensics and the criminal justice system, drawing on a forthcoming National Academy of Sciences report that’s expected to be extremely critical of how science is used in the courtroom.
Fox seems to have redesigned its website, so opinion pieces now allow for comments. I would suggest not reading them. I think my eyes may be bleeding.
Good article. Interesting that you call out certain people by name and link. Rather direct and I think a good precedent.
You have a typo in it, btw: “prosecutros”.
I looked all over Forbes.com, and could not find this piece Radley.
See, you said that, and then I had to read.
For the record, my eyes began to bleed here:
What did you expect when you put that clown in the white house? We are getting afro-economics. See how well it works in africa? They can’t feed their own, but they sure can afford to buy guns to slaughter each other. Kind of sounds like every big U.S. city where blacks are concentrated.
MacK
Coffee through the nose. Thanks.
I’ve only read the comments thus far, and they’re spectacularly rabid.
Shit. I didn’t listen, so now my eyes are bleeding, too.
This sort of bias can creep in unintentionally, or it can be more overt. But studies show it’s always there.
Hey Radley,
I read statements like this a lot, but most folks never cite the original sources for this kind of information. When I ask for sources, many people get indignant. In this particular case, I happen to agree with you, but I think it would make your argument stronger to support your claims. It could be because I’m an academic, and most people probably couldn’t care less.
So, this will be your third article for Foxnews?
WTF? Radley’s got a Fox column? I just checked Forbes and couldn’t find it…
Radley,
You’re a criminal-loving, values-hating, America-bashing liberal and your opinions are not valid. Or, at least that seems to be the theme in those comments (which, thanks to you telling us to ignore, I had to read).
I agree with you and believe that the founding principles of this country favor those being accused by the state (or federal government) and should be provided every benefit of the doubt. Those people that read your column at FoxNews, tho, seem to be of the mindset of “kill them all and let God sort them out.” Such ignorance surely cannot go unpunished, can it?
I have to admit, I no longer read foxnews.com. While I appreciate the fact that they give air to libertarian columnists, they don’t even come within sight of the minimum threshold of objectivity that any credible news organization should have.
The comments don’t even bother to take on the argument. In their tunnel vision, where the world is crisply divided into conservatives and liberals, they see the article as liberal and therefore condemn it not for its content, but simply because it looks like it comes from the enemy. Fox News should redesign it’s logo to include pitchforks and torches to be more representative of the character of audience they cater to.
Radley, you missed the one thing which would truly fix the current system, and that is (as I’ve been harping on for some time) to bring actual scientific method into forensics. This mainly includes double-blind studies. It’s not “do these two hairs match”, it’s “does this hair match any of these 10 other hairs?”
Part of it, though, is that the researchers in the lab and the police/prosecution should have absolutely *no* contact whatsoever. The prosecutor shouldn’t even know who will do or did the study. The researcher should have no information at all about the case they’re working on. It should simply be “study #550 – see if this given blood sample matches any of these 10 other blood samples.” If it’s a famous case that they couldn’t possibly have missed in the news, then the forensics should get a “change of venue” and the research handled in a different state.
As a scientist, I’m appalled by what I see going on – there’s a tremendous social pressure on these forensics labs to come up with a conviction, particularly in high-profile cases. Even if they’re not overtly pressured, a person couldn’t help but feel it if they’re handling details for a child killer or such.
Furthermore, there’s no reason – none – that a forensic researcher should testify in court. The research should be well-documented and an expert should be able to look over the study and the conclusions and explain that to a jury. Again, this removes another chance to pressure this person.
Your ideas are good, Radley, but without scientific method, it’s useless.
Wait. Radley, I thought it was proven yesterday that you didn’t write a bi-weekly column for Fox News.
I don’t understand.
As a fellow scientist, and someone who is tangentially involved in forensic toxicology, I am in complete agreement with Michael Chaney.
#12 — I have called for double-blind analysis in other stuff I’ve written on forensics reform. I just wanted to keep this piece more general audience.
#7 — Read the Koppl paper I link to in the column. He details several studies showing how even well-intentioned forensic scientists can be biased when they’re given too much information about the context of the tests they’re doing.
I love how half the comments don’t even pertain to the article at all. And seriously, we all make mistakes, but can these people proof read their shit first?
I fairly certain most of those comment’s authors didn’t read your article, or thought they read it at Forbes…
#16- Profreeding kommentz iz wut saparates uss frem th animalls
“Furthermore, there’s no reason – none – that a forensic researcher should testify in court.”
I completely disagree. Having the expert testify is part of the defendant’s fundamental right to confront his accuser. Even an independent and unbiased forensic scientist may make mistakes or questionable assumptions. The only way for a defendant to challenge the accuracy of the forensic analysis itself is to be able to question the person who actually conducted it.
Also, my understanding is that in many states the burden is on the defendant to require the forensic expert to testify. The prosecution is generally perfectly happy to just present the expert’s final report.
After reading your piece, I had to read the comments for the entertainment value. I should have taken your advice as it turned into an epic facepalm session.
How hard is it to get through comment moderation on the “FSite”? Or do they screen for crazy and post only those?
These people must think: “I saw it on CSI and they said it was 100% accurate so they can’t be wrong or have made it up just for the sake of drama on the show.”
Ah-ha! Now you’re hacking into the Fox News website. Cease and desist immediately.
D’oh! How’s that “Preview” button coming, Radley? Even the IRLC has a preview button…
I actually discovered Radley’s writing through his Fox News column, which had a link ( or maybe it just stated the url) to The Agitator. That was probably around 7 years ago, wow.
The only time I read their site now is when this site links to a new column. Well, that’s not completely true. I also read Roger Friedman’s column occasionally.
When I say I don’t read foxnews.com, I didn’t mean to imply that I don’t watch the Fox News channel. The TV channel is different. While its news reporting isn’t any better than the website, it does have chicks with short skirts and tight tops.
I’ve got to ask, why in the hell do you write for them? I’m not a libertarian but I read you because I feel like you’re one of the more intelligent pundits around. I can’t imagine you actual believe that Fox News is a legitimate news organization. Is it just to get some credentials or what?
NutellaonToast.
I expect Radley writes for them for several reasons,
1) They pay him
2) He is reaching out to people who need to learn what liberty means.
We don’t think any less of Jesus for eating with prostitutes and tax-collectors (although I think it is pretty scummy to imply that prostitutes, who ply an honorable profession, are on the same moral plane as the vile scum who choose to steal for a living). When teachers volunteer at prisons we don’t criticize them.
This is similar.
@ John Harrold #7
There are many reports that, while not about forensics expressly, are good citations for how bias affects analytical and scientific results. Here are a few of them:
“Cognitive Effects and Cognition of Forensic Experts” by Dr. Itiel Dror, University of Southampton United Kingdom (Briefing, not a peer reviewed paper, but has links to many relevant studies).
Baruch Fischhoff, “Hindsight does not equal Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment Under Uncertainty,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 3 (1975)
“Rationalization and Cognitive Dissonance: Do Choices Affect or Reflect Preferences?” M. Keith Chen. Working paper, Jan. 2008.
Baruch Fischhoff, The Perceived Informativeness of Factual Information, Technical Report DDI- I (Eugene, OR: Oregon Research Institute, 1976).
Baruch Fischoff and Ruth Beyth in “I Knew It Would Happen: Remembered Probabilities of Once-Future Things,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13 (1975),
148. Maya Bar-Hillel, “The Base-Rate Fallacy in Probability Judgments,” Acta Psychologica, 1980.
Great column as usual except for one error. Joyce Gilchrist was malpracticing in Oklahoma City, not Kansas City.
Excellent, common sense article. There is nothing that anyone who is remotely interested in justice could disagree with. Sad to see that most comments have nothing to do with the article.
Spell check time:
1) “fourth sample to an indepenednt lab” — should be independent
2) “same state bureaucracy as police or prosecutros” — should be prosecutors