[nickodell]

>My prediction: this firm will probably try to get removed from the case, rather than open source their shitty code.

That isn't necessarily their choice. The prosecutors will make the decision about whether to withdraw the DNA evidence. They probably won't, given that they would need to give the defendant a new trial, which could lead to an accused murderer getting off. A bad look for any prosecutor.

More to the point, if the firm withdraws from any case where their credibility is questioned, what does that say to law enforcement agencies who are thinking about using their software?

[ahepp]

My understanding is that (some) law enforcement agencies have been more than happy to drop cases rather than subject investigative tools to proper scrutiny[0]. They have no qualms resorting to "parallel construction"[1], and simply using the inadmissible (sometimes illegal) evidence to find admissible evidence.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

[nickodell]

Stingrays are more useful as an investigative tool than an evidentiary tool. DNA is the other way around.

[gidan]

That would be implying that the prosecutor would prefer taking the life of an innocent rather than having it hurt his career, making the prosecutor kind of a criminal.

[melq]

>making the prosecutor kind of a criminal.

Never met a lawyer before huh?

Jokes aside, prosecutors pushing through cases they know to be unsound isn't exactly uncommon. Many prosecutors are more concerned with their conviction rates than they are in justice, because that's what they are measured and rewarded by.

[XorNot]

The prosecutor doesn't see it that way. They see it as just "knowing" the guy is "definitely guilty". It's just like, a feeling you know? And a win will look great when they go for re-election (why is that even a thing?).

Presuming rational actors in this case is missing the general problem with the system: people very easily convince themselves they know the truth despite how the validity of the evidence changes. Whatever it said initially, that must be right - it's misinformation 101. Once a belief is established it is much harder to change.

[mlindner]

That's not how prosecuters work in the US. Their goal is to win the case, not make the "right" decision. They'll spin evidence as hard as they can against the accused.

[nickodell]

>taking the life of an innocent

The prosecutor isn't unilaterally deciding whether the DNA evidence is valid. There will be a public hearing where both the prosecution and defense show evidence about the validity of the DNA evidence, and a court will rule based on that evidence.

[bdavisx]

It would also give every person convicted using their software an incentive to open an appeal.

[Spivak]

I like how this is considered a bad thing. Like we can’t let this guy point out that he’s being convicted by an unauditable black box that suddenly isn’t worth using if it has to stand up to scrutiny because then everyone would want to. The horror.

Like I’m actually kinda shocked this is the reality. I would have assumed that DNA evidence would have some blessed methodologies and tools/algorithms, with a strict definition of what constitutes a match or partial match specifically so this wouldn’t happen.