[razeh]

No. When it comes to evaluating forensic evidence lawyers are, by training, too process oriented to solve the problems. Ask a prosecutor what the error rate is for fingerprints or DNA evidence and you’ll get a blank stare. They don’t even try to measure it.

[paiute]

A lot of doctors are process oriented as well. Which is fine most of the time. But I was similarly disturbed when a specialist had zero clue what the approx half life of one of the primary drugs they use was. There was a situation that didn’t fit the book and i just looked it up for them on the spot. They didn’t like me.

[zamadatix]

You're telling me no defense lawyer thinks about arguing the evidence is unreliable or are you just saying the prosecution throws everything they can find at their side of the case? The former seems extremely hard to believe (lest you're about to become the greatest defense lawmaker of all time due to wisdom shared in a short HN comment) and the latter seems to be evidence of the system working both well and as designed, not evidence it's badly faulty.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> latter seems to be evidence of the system working both well and as designed

Prosecutors in America have one goal: close the case. At any cost, close the case. They are not interested in justice. They are not interested in finding the one who actually committed the crime. They are interested in closing the case. If that is “working as designed”, then we need to change the design.