Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Random's avatar

.

Balko: "I had an essay in the New York Times about the long and sordid history of elite police units like the SCORPION unit that killed Tyre Nichols."

NYT? The Big Time -- WTG!

.

Expand full comment
Peaches LeToure's avatar

With regards to the very first bullet point, my favorite thing to read from you is debunking faulty forensic science. Much of it is completely made up, but smart people believe it because it makes sense. Lots of things that make sense turn out to be false and the lay public has no real way of knowing this unless those with the loudest voices convince them.

Unfortunately, it is much easier to just believe what the "experts" say without really examining the basis for why they say things. As an example, Megan Kelly (think of her what you will, but she has a huge following) recently had a guest on who discussed how he gets information from listening to 911 tapes. As in, he can tell if the person on the tape is lying or telling the truth based on their demeanor. Before believing that, I want to know how often he is correct in his assessment and how often he is wrong (as determined by as objective a source as possible - not the forensic experts and not the prosecutors). Just like getting accuracy readings on drug dogs (which is somehow never released for the public to see), it really shouldn't be too hard to determine.

That is just one example of what irks me today :). The larger point, though, is that I want to see more evaluation of forensic science and more attempts to have the common culture acknowledge that most of it is false.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts