Posted on 12/09/2013 4:40:06 AM PST by Kaslin
This chic needs to spend the rest of her life in jail and doing “jobs” that would go to pay for all the new trials that will come of this. Sje must be an obama supporter/voter to have gotten off so lightly.
“Forensics labs, the study says, are funded, in part, per conviction...”
I worked for many years as a forensic chemist....and that’s nuts!! In fact, the lab where I worked would have considered that arangement to be unethical. I know because I once accepted a job along similar lines and the staff had a debate about it. I was instructed in no uncertain terms that payment must never depend on results.
Perhaps its not everyplace but its certainly more then just this one case.
I hope the Bxxxx gets to room with someone falsely convicted.
I’ve often said that I would never want to testify as an “expert witness” in any court proceeding, because I know going in that one side is lying to win their case. There is no way I will lie and use my standing as an expert to support the lie.
What Dookhan did is far worse than simply telling the story that the defense or prosecuting attorneys want told.
I saw that...and it’s still nuts! I would not want to testify in a case where the defense attorney can ask “Is it true that you only get paid if my client is convicted?”
Rope.
Neck.
Tree limb.
(Some assembly required.)
She won’t. They will all be released back on the citizenry.
Corruption? Why not? PC itself is enforced mental and moral corruption. Once there is a place in a persons mind where untruth is truth ANYTHING becomes possible.
Despite her looks, GUILTY!
> Ive often said that I would never want to testify as an expert witness in any court proceeding, because I know going in that one side is lying to win their case. There is no way I will lie and use my standing as an expert to support the lie.
Anyone that’s an expert knows there’s no such thing as an “expert” just someone who’s been at it a long time. Being called an expert implies that they are infallible which they are not.
Definitely a liberal...
There is the nexus of the problem. Many cops are enabled by same.
As if some exhaustive study by panels of experts is needed to apprehend the reasons.
Don't worry. At least in many jurisdictions, if you're actually expert at something, it's unlikely that you'll be called as an “expert witness.”
I'm aware of a case where the question is over the valuation of the intellectual property inherent in a piece of proprietary enterprise-level software and accompanying proprietary network hardware. The plaintiff's attorneys have proposed an expert witness who has run IT businesses since the 1980s, has developed and written software, has worked as a certified network engineer, and currently manages a staff of IT professionals.
The defense's argument to forbid the witness is that he's never qualified to be an expert witness in court before.
The defense's “expert witness” is a fellow who professionally serves as an IT expert witness. His primary living is made from selling insurance. He also salvages hardware, including IT hardware. But he's been “qualified” by courts previously as an IT expert witness, and thus, is automatically accepted as such.
Go figure.
sitetest
She’s a representative sample of what happens when you incentivize incorrectly. The entire criminal justice system needs a revamp. End sovereign immunity, end civil forfeiture and recalibrate the “war” on drugs if you want to return to Constitutional liberties.
That would be a major injustice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.