Forensic Science Trails with Errors

中文批注

这篇文章的话题或许是大家平时并不常接触的，比较偏门，是关于Forensic Study的。究竟Forensic study的可信度有多高？在法庭上被采纳的证据是否100%基于科学基础呢？关于这些问题的答案，文中并没有给出非常肯定的答案，只是提及有些是lack of testing and research的~但无论如何，forensic evidence仍是被普遍认同，普遍应用的。文末还提到了一个曾经的案例利用shell上的痕迹与枪管的痕迹做对比，从而判定被告是否有罪。

无论是从单词上来说，还是从理解方面，这篇文章并不难。如果是PTE考试目标65+的学生，那么理解上应该不存在大问题哦~如果有一些不认识的单词，可以参考下面的key vocabulary list，辅助大家理解。

AIL的PTE素材库，会定期给大家整理一些PTE考试中可能会接触到的素材，在PTE这个考试有限的备考材料之外，给大家提供一些可以提升自身英语能力的文章~ 每天1-2篇，花了1个多小时，不出几周，你的英语 能力就会有显著的提高哦！

[Key Vocabulary]

Scientific: adj. 科学的，系统的

Forensic: adj. 法院的，法庭的，辩论的

Courtroom: n. 法庭，审判室

Fundamentally: adv. 根本地，从根本上，基础地

Accurate: adj. 精确的

Objectivity: n. 客观，客观性

Testimony: n.【法】证词，证言，证据

Herald: Vt. 通报，预示…的来临

Disproportionate: adj. 不成比例的

Illustrative: adj. 说明的，做例证的，解说的

Testify: Vt. 证明，证实，作证

Barrel: n. 桶，枪管，炮管

Defendant: n. 被告

Methodology: n. 方法学，方法论

Convict: Vt. 证明…有罪

Full Transcript

What appears to be accepted science in the courtroom may not be accepted science among scientists.

“We have increasing doubts about this evidence, but we don’t feel yet that we have the scientific knowledge and basis to exclude it altogether.”

Jed Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. He spoke about forensic evidence—and the need for it to actually be based in science—at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston on February 18th.

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report critical of a lot of the forensic evidence in the courtroom.

“Most fundamentally…the report said that what was really lacking was testing and research. And thus they questioned whether any of this could be called science and they also questioned whether it was really that accurate…

But forensic evidence is still widely admitted, even when the science behind it may be lacking.

I think courts continue, despite their doubts, to admit this evidence…and that is still the feeling…that, eh, it’s still better than nothing, it’s still useful evidence, it has some degree of objectivity that’s not present in much lay testimony. And therefore it is useful. The problem of course is it comes heralded as science, and that gives it a weight that is probably disproportionate.

I had a case, this was before the National Academy report, but it’s sort of illustrative of what I’m talking about…United States versus Glynn. In that case, the government put on a tool-mark expert to testify that the markings on the shell that had been found at the scene of the crime matched the markings inside the barrel of the gun that had been found under the defendant’s bed…and I asked him, for example, what’s your error rate and what’s the error rate of this methodology that you’re using. And he said zero. And I said zero? And he said yes. And I said how can it be zero. And he said well, in every case I’ve testified, the guy’s been convicted.”

—Steve Mirsky

 (Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/forensic-science-trials-with-errors/)