[Mind's Eye] Miscarriages of Justice (Knox)

I've been reading up on this topic for my novel. Dull stuff. Case
after case leaves you wondering what does go on in courtrooms and
police investigations. I don't think I ever got anyone sent down who
didn't do the crime and in practice didn't feel the way I do reading
the literature - this,of course,may be part of the problem. I did
experience a lot of doubt during investigation, but if I didn't find
clear cut evidence I gave up.

Most of the reporting in the Knox case has not been on the actual
evidence - my conclusion on that I found is there isn't any and the
forensics were bent. What interests me is why we don't apply
scientific standards in criminal investigation and courtroom procedure
- the obvious answer is the people involved don't have scientific
training or aptitude. Yet in tests we find forensic experts are
heavily biased towards whoever pays them, usually the prosecution
(numerous summaries in New Scientist). Despite CSI, much of the
science in forensics isn't.

My interest extends to what we find credible about our societies
generally and how we do this. People make fantastic claims such as
'voting on the economy' - but when tested know nothing about economics
or the economy. Judges in the UK tell you, as a jury member, to note
the demeanor of witnesses, yet science tells us we are useless at this
and chronically biased. The 'evidence' the prosecution was using
against Knox was so pathetic they had no credibility. They have said
they will appeal their appeal court - but what does this say? We are
supposed to accept court judgments and such an appeal sort of says
even the professionals in the system don't.

We tend to privilege police evidence and expert witnesses - but this
evidence is often poor and much more speculative than claimed.
Sometimes, as in the Nico Bento case, madness takes over - here the
whole courtroom except Nico was suckered into not believing the
evidence of their own eyes. We also had a spate of crazy ritual abuse
trials on both sides of the pond.

From an academic perspective, much of our public debate is ill-
informed claptrap stuck in Idols exposed 400 years ago. Much of what
happens in our criminal justice system is pretty clear cut - criminals
are pretty stupid (average IQ of those caught 82) and their excuses
poor and easy to disprove. What I suspect is that in ten percent of
cases where there is real doubt you are in real trouble if there is
circumstantial reason to suspect you and you end up in a lottery. and
an investigation system that lines up only the evidence against you.

We have a case here in which a male nurse has been convicted of
murders through injecting insulin. The case looked OK as he was on
duty when 5 elderly women died of hypoglycemia - but now we are being
told this condition is as high as !0%
naturally in such patients.

Much public decision-making is based on what we exclude in scientific
reasoning and we still have massive ignorance after nearly 100 years
of universal education. I see little sign we learn from mistakes and
increasing evidence we hide them more than ever under 'learning
lessons' rhetoric.