
US dismantles forensic science commission - finid
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/sessions-orders-justice-dept-to-end-forensic-science-commission-suspend-review-policy/2017/04/10/2dada0ca-1c96-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.980e9493eb7b
======
colmvp
It just continues a long line of anti-science measures by the administration.

Proposing to cut funding to the EPA, the Energy Department, NASA, National
Institute of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...

And then there's the nomination of climate change denier Scott Pruitt as head
of the EPA.

Not to mention the dozens of science and technology positions in the
administrations that are yet to be filled.

~~~
wfo
I can understand many of these moves even though I don't agree with them --
these agencies are wasteful from the perspective of very very conservative
people. They are government overreach from a Libertarian perspective. They are
advocacy organizations that have political beliefs that are not in line with
the administration (racial justice, environmental protection, sexual health,
etc)

But this one is just pure cartoonish moustache-twirling evil. Even the most
staunch Libertarians out there think government supported law enforcement is a
worthwhile use of taxpayer money, and in particular making sure that it's done
correctly. The conflict of interesting inherent in having scientific standards
for conviction and evidence be determined by prosecutors, not scientists, is
easy to see. Here we have Sessions saying: "We don't need to make sure that we
are convicting people accurately, or that the science we use to lock people in
cages for the rest of their lives to be repeatedly raped is based on fact". We
have recently learned that nearly all forensic science is FAR less accurate
than the people using it suggested and that FBI forensic scientists have been
testifying under oath and wildly exaggerating the accuracy of their methods in
order to get convictions -- this is public knowledge, and yet Sessions still
wants to quash any investigation.

Of all the cabinet picks and even more so than the president, I think Sessions
is the most terrifying. What do you do when the Attorney General, a person
with near unlimited power to imprison anyone in the country is explicitly and
blatantly malicious and corrupt? He earned his way up the ranks, after all,
abusing his position as a prosecutor to go after his political opponents, some
of whom are still in jail for daring to run for office with a D next to their
name in Sessions' turf in Alabama: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2017/mar/04/jeff-session...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2017/mar/04/jeff-sessions-legal-past-democrats-trump-administration)

~~~
ajross
> _What do you do when the Attorney General, a person with near unlimited
> power to imprison anyone in the country is explicitly and blatantly
> malicious and corrupt?_

We consider ourselves lucky that the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No seriously: a wingnut DoJ can do terrible damage, but one thing Sessions
doesn't have is a "near unlimited power to imprison". Courts are still courts.
They've been doing their job so far.

~~~
cmurf
If you have a good lawyer. What they've been building and want more of is
classism in justice, justice as a product. You get more and better justice if
you can afford more and better lawyers. If you can't, well that's merely
unfair but good luck getting justice out of unfairness.

~~~
ajross
The response was to an apparent fear that Sessions will start using the
administrative power of the DoJ to imprison political enemies. He can't do
that, because separation of powers.

Obviously injustice exists. And it did under Lynch and Holder too.

~~~
danharaj
The Supreme Court allowed the Executive to imprison all Japanese-Americans for
a time. The separation of powers dissolves under the right circumstances.

------
pyrophane
Well, this administration clearly doesn't want anyone within the executive
branch to have the ability, vis a vis independence, to contradict their
agenda, on any level.

The result is that anyone empowered to do research will answer to them
directly, and anything don't like will never see the light of day, if it is
even brought up in the first place (because, of course, this is also an
administration that only wants to confirmation of their policies).

So, essentially, we can expect only more of this. Quasi-indepenent commissions
will be replaced by groups we never hear from, unless they have something to
say that backs up an administration policy. It'll be a rough four years for
policy.

~~~
microcolonel
This is what "public funding for research" means. If we didn't want politics
to affect research, we shouldn't have sold it to politicians.

~~~
rl3
That's a good point.

Why does the government directly fund scientific research? A better system
might be to spin off private, non-profit entities and inject them with massive
amounts of cash—enough to weather stormy political climates.

~~~
microcolonel
That would be interesting, though I fear that system would suffer the same
problems. It could be corrupted by a desire to receive ongoing funding (either
the individual researchers, or the organization).

Physics research is an example of something which is hard to corrupt
politically. However, because government is at least somewhat in charge of so
many things today, fields like medicine, mental health, anthropology, even
geology can become political.

Then there are the obvious things like matters relating to guns, where the
government has a clear interest in "proving" that the public shouldn't have
guns, which is one of the CDC was barred from doing research related to this.
If I recall correctly, one of the researchers employed by the CDC was recorded
insinuating that his team would manipulate the observations to reach a
foregone conclusion.

The other obvious one is the relationship between government research,
lobbying (official and unofficial), and regulatory bodies.

I do get why it is attractive to fund research with government money, however.
It can often seem like there just isn't enough money in research, and indeed
there isn't much; but if your research dollar is spent on corrupt research
then it may be worse than nothing.

By relying on private money, the special interests can be diversified
automatically, which seems more healthy to my mind.

~~~
rl3
> _... though I fear that system would suffer the same problems. It could be
> corrupted by a desire to receive ongoing funding ..._

Emphasis on _massive_ amounts of money. For example, let's say USG dumps 80
billion into YC Research with the expectation of being able to sustain
research for 16 years. I'm pretty sure YCR would struggle to spend 5B/year,
and I'm really sure they wouldn't give a single shit about trying to
ingratiate themselves at the expense of their work's integrity for the
purposes of receiving ongoing funding. There would be no reason to, because
their funding interval would span at least two administrations, possibly four.

That example of course changes if you assume YCR would be picking up
responsibility for critical science previously overseen by government
agencies. However, the point is that ample, lump-sum funding of private non-
profit organizations can completely destroy any perverse political incentives
that would normally plague a government agency.

> _By relying on private money, the special interests can be diversified
> automatically, which seems more healthy to my mind._

Sure, but what's the point if the research output is some company's IP or even
trade secret? Private money doesn't have the obligation of serving the public
interest. Government money does, at least in spirit. Philanthropy is of course
nice, but you can't rely on it.

------
finid
The commission will be replaced with an internal forensics expert(s), so out
goes independent scientific oversight of an arm of the govt. that touts so
much science.

------
arise
I for one will be taking this into account should I find myself in the jury
box.

The bad thing is, eyewitness testimony is even worse. And police testimony has
a bruised record too. Both sides hire experts to say what they want. I guess
video footage is the only thing left to provide objective evidence of a crime
scene. :\

------
tn135
While I am all for reducing the size of the government this is bad move. This
has less to do with science and more to do with overzealous Jeff Sessions.

Good science often helps find the right guy and stop preventing wrongful
convictions. Over last few decades advancements in DNA testing etc. have
helped several innocent people from being prosecuted wrongly. This is a step
in a reverse direction for criminal justice reforms in USA (though totally
expected from Jess Sessions).

Rant: I think we as a people are to be blamed here. We are the ones who have
often failed to stand up for the rights of the people who are prosecuted. We
buy the government's propaganda of partitioning society as "those bad guys"
and "we good guys" and then let government treat the former as total shit.
Trump has won election using those kind of tactics.

~~~
swiley
Wasn't there recently discovered some hundreds of potentially innocent people
in either death row or prison due to flawed DNA tests?

------
Gracana
> Sessions will end a Justice Department partnership with independent
> scientists to raise forensic science standards

Well, shit. When I saw the headline I grasped for a thread of hope that maybe
this meant a blow to the terrible and corrupt forensic science industry. Nope,
this is a step back towards the status quo. I should know better than to be
optimistic.

~~~
greggman
here's a Frontline about how nearly all "forensic science" is not actually
backed by science

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/real-
csi/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/real-csi/)

------
tossaway322
This is a shame. Next the FBI will be bringing charges based upon the use of
crystal balls, hair samples, spirit photography, and talking goats. All
scientifically validated by the NBS and DOD undoubtedly.

~~~
StillBored
Or heavy metal posters... This is just the national version of what happened
in Texas with regard to Todd Willingham. The forensic review committee was
disband for fear that they would publicly validate what was becoming clearer
by the day. Basically, that Texas likely executed an innocent man based on gut
instinct forensic evidence, and the well known fact that people into heavy
metal were satanists that kill their children.

Of course SOP for a Republican in Texas in this situation is kill the
messenger and deny the message.

~~~
aanm1988
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham#Fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham#Fire)

> During the penalty phase of the trial, a prosecutor said that Willingham's
> tattoo of a skull and serpent fit the profile of a sociopath. Two medical
> experts confirmed the theory. A psychologist was asked to interpret
> Willingham's Iron Maiden poster, and said that a picture of a fist punching
> through a skull signified violence and death. He added that Willingham's Led
> Zeppelin poster of a fallen angel was "many times" an indicator of "cultive-
> type" activities

What the fuck. wow.

~~~
defined
Wait, where was the phrenologist's testimony? /s

------
pizza
Looked at his Wikipedia page to brush up on our Attorney General.. Also Jeff
Sessions:

"On October 5, 2005, Sessions was one of nine Senators who voted against a
Senate amendment to a House bill that prohibited cruel, inhumane, or degrading
treatment or punishment of individuals in the custody or under the physical
control of the United States Government"

"Sessions has been a strong supporter of civil forfeiture, the government
practice of seizing property when it has allegedly been involved in a crime.
Sessions opposes "any reform" of civil forfeiture legislation."

Incredible..
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions#Crime_and_securi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions#Crime_and_security)

~~~
aanm1988
He was also too racist to be confirmed as a judge in the 80s.

There is a nice letter from MLK's widow about him.

Although, why would you need to have a law against cruel/inhumane treatment?
Isn't that already part of the bill of rights?

~~~
millstone
This is interesting so I dug a bit. Here is the amendment:
[https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/senate-
ame...](https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/senate-
amendment/1977)

The amendment prohibited "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment" for anyone in custody of the US government, including those
physically outside of the US. Notably it was introduced by John McCain.

~~~
aanm1988
Oh right that makes sense.

------
kchoudhu
Is anyone keeping track of what damage will have to be undone when Trump
finally leaves office and is replaced by someone more reasonable?

~~~
defined
I think even the knock-on effects will be incalculable after 4 years.

------
finid
_“The availability of prompt and accurate forensic science analysis to our law
enforcement officers and prosecutors is critical to integrity in law
enforcement, reducing violent crime, and increasing public safety,” Sessions
said in the statement. “We applaud the professionalism of the National
Commission on Forensic Science and look forward to building on the
contributions it has made in this crucial field.”_

"applaud and destroy."

------
awqrre
Trump is toxic but at least he exposes similar people.

------
scarmig
Wonderful! It's a twofer: the Trump administration gets to attack both
scientists and accused innocents. Sessions is due for a big pat on the back
for this one.

~~~
tradersam
They defeated their enemy: logic!

~~~
finid
Yes, they did, except this is not a _winner takes all_ thing. We're still
living in the same country.

------
elastic_church
Interesting choice of things to trim, I'd like no more public resources being
used on the FCPA, insider trading, and "material misrepresentations", as these
all seem to have disproportionate costs than effect. Who should I tweet?

~~~
InclinedPlane
FCPA? Seriously? That's a revenue stream for the government.

~~~
elastic_church
yo dawg, I heard you like kickbacks, so give us a kickback because you gave
someone else a kickback, so we can kickback and relax

I'd prefer if our government did not engage in this practice

------
a3n
#MAIA

------
Oxitendwe
This was only established 4 years ago. It's not a big deal.

~~~
wfo
Yes, established recently to deal with an enormous crisis of failures in
forensic science that were putting innocent people in jail in huge numbers
across the country. The FBI crime lab was essentially doing junk science and
sending expert technicians to testify and say "The astrological sign of the
defendant that I've described in technical scientific terms you don't
understand tells us he was at the crime scene with 99.99% accuracy, trust me,
I'm a senior scientist at the FBI crime lab."

It's a huge deal if you're accused of a crime or if you care about innocent
people going free.

~~~
DanBC
and it's wider than criminal justice, some of these tests are used in family
cases too. Here's a blog post from England about hair strand analysis for
substance misuse: [http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/hair-strand-testing-some-
int...](http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/hair-strand-testing-some-interesting-
information/)

