Should "Experts" who are proven to be wrong and whose testimony condemned a person to death be held criminally liable? ***Link in Comments***
Depends on the circumstances. If an expert witness is using the best known methods of the times, & doesn't overstep his or her conclusions, but is shown to be wrong later because of improvements in forensic science, then absolutely not; they did...
..the best they could. But if they are shown to have used shoddy or generally unaccepted methods, or overstep their conclusions, then they are at fault & I think should be held liable. The example of hair identification in the article baffles me...
*I* know that hair identification (assuming we're not talking about DNA from hair follicles) is NOT conclusive of identity; why would an expert witness claim it is? And did the defense not have their own expert witness to counter this statement?
Another example of bad expert witnessing is the guy who was executed (I think in Texas) because he was convicted of setting his house on fire with the intent to kill his children. The "expert" witness in that case was later shown to have used...
methods known to be inaccurate at the time (& in addition newer techniques also exonerated the man); nevertheless his appeals were denied & he was executed. THAT guy is thought to be at fault; not sure what happened to him.
1. Prosecution should be held liable above anyone.
2. Expert witnesses may only address certain aspects of the case not whether the individual actually did the crime.
3. There would have to be proof of malicious intent.
4. I hate to shatter anyone's perception of the world but scientists and "experts" are often wrong. There should be much more evidence to convict beyond an expert witness.
Insightful. Did you read the article on the link
For those that voted no: if you are wrongfully killed based on bad science, what would you think should be done? I would think some form of malpractice suit at a minimum.
Maybe a suit but jurors should be looking at all the evidence. If the only proof against him/her was a hair, then the jury shouldn't have found them guilty with the death penalty anyways.