I believe the state has a corner on things when it comes to dealing with so-called criminals. The state is all powerful with deep pockets. If the state wants you the state will get you.

I also advocate eliminating all DAs, elected or appointed, and using a computerized random selection process for prosecutor and defender in EVERY case.

If I was this guy I’da shot myself for letting garbage get through on my watch.

But then I value honor above every thing.

“External” confirmation is only part of a robust system of checking. But you can’t do it properly unless you’re ensuring that identical procedures have been carried out. Anything else leads to doubt, which is toxic to the legal system.

The best way to do it, without paying large unnecessary sums, is a nationalwide network of identikit labs, where testing is carried out blind on samples (they could be local, they could be from elsewhere…).

Those are the standards necessary, by doing the second, confirming with other labs, you don’t need central control over the lab.

That’s how science has worked for hundreds of years: external confirmation. You don’t throw that away for “central control and standards”, then you’re not practicing science anymore.

(Oh, and no, sorry – I have no time for subdivisions within a state wanting special powers where there isn’t a good argument for them)

The concept that paying a profit margin for lab testing, where the important criteria is consistency (state labs should only be doing established tests, if *defendants* want to pay for cutting edge testing, that’s another matter entirely)…I am not seeing any reason for it. There is steady, non-creative work where a bureaucracy is indeed best for ensuring consistent results. That means a centrally-run network.

Mattocracy; There may have been “standards”. However, we’re meaning totally different things. You’re talking about bits of paper. I’m meaning a prescriptive set of testing, as used in industries where failure *cannot be tolerated*.

This means a consistent service, with identical procedures. And checks and guards at every level to enforce them. Testing for consistency within the lab. Testing for consistency between labs. Audits…

This is totally different from suffering LOCAL political interference, which of course interferes with the proper proceedings of crime labs. That’s not “top down”, it’s “local meddling” with issues which are identical nationally! A single, nationwide set of standards set by a board of professional leaders can resist that kind of meddling.

AC: Yep, and outside the centralised crime lab in the UK (which the Tories are shutting), *exactly* the same thing is seen here.

Two things strike me:

1) More administrative staff than analysts?
2) Only seven analysts for samples from all over the state? Without knowing all the context, it seems on the surface that the ‘insufficient staffing’ argument may be legitimate. Not that it makes the current situation any better.

What makes you think there weren’t standards before hand? There were and they obviously were ignored. You can have all the rules in the world but that’s just more guidelines for personell ignore. Cause ya know, you can’t just make people do something just because you have fucking rules and standards.

You know how you get people to do shit right? You fire people for fucking up. If it sends innocent people to prison, you get charged with a crime. That’s how you get people to be accountable.

And where were private labs ever mentioned?

Huh? This was a university lab, that got tests from all over the state. There were no local control issues.

Nor were the local control issues at the numerous state crime labs that have had problems in recent yeras.

/Huffington Post’ed

See, I can toss slogans around as well. Again, taking these things OUT of local control, and having standards enforced from the top, with testing, is the only reasonable thing to do when NO mistakes are tolerable.

If a private lab was so unconcerned about pathology results, and someone died as a result, there would be hell to pay.