M. Chris Fabricant writes in his book Junk Science in the American Criminal Justice System:
One of the primary hurdles to reducing the use of the junk science
in criminal investigations and trials lies in the standards used to determine
the admissibility of forensic evidence in court.
Traditionally, U.S. courts have relied on doctrines such as
the Frye Standard and the Daubert Standard to assess whether scientific
evidence should be presented to juries. The Frye Standard, originating from a
1923 case, allows evidence if it has gained "general acceptance"
within the relevant scientific community. However, this standard has often been
too lenient, allowing pseudo-scientific practices to enter the courtroom simply
because they were widely used, despite lacking rigorous scientific validation.
In response to the shortcomings of the Frye Standard, the Supreme
Court established the Daubert Standard in 1993, which requires a more stringent
scientific evaluation of the evidence. The Daubert ruling instructs judges to
act as gatekeepers, ensuring that an expert's testimony is based on valid
scientific principles, has been peer-reviewed, and has known error rates.
Despite this seemingly robust criterion, practical
application varies dramatically across jurisdictions. Many judges, lacking
scientific expertise, continue to struggle with distinguishing credible science
from junk science. Consequently, unreliable forensic evidence continues to find
its way into trials, perpetuating wrongful convictions. Beyond legal standards,
institutional resistance
Beyond legal standards, institutional resistance forms
another substantial barrier to addressing junk science. Law enforcement
agencies and prosecutorial bodies often exhibit a profound reluctance to amend
established practices. There's an inherent inertia within these institutions;
changing methods, admitting past mistakes, and embracing new protocols require
significant shifts in culture and mindset.
Law enforcement officials and prosecutors may fear that conceding
errors or questioning forensic methodologies could undermine their credibility,
lead to reopening past convictions, or even expose them to legal liabilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment