Show of HandsShow of Hands

Cruz2016 July 20th, 2013 8:09pm

Should "Experts" who are proven to be wrong and whose testimony condemned a person to death be held criminally liable? ***Link in Comments***

9 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

susanr Colorado
07/20/13 9:45 pm

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...

susanr Colorado
07/20/13 9:46 pm

..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...

susanr Colorado
07/20/13 9:48 pm

*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?

susanr Colorado
07/20/13 9:49 pm

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...

susanr Colorado
07/20/13 9:51 pm

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.

wadenx requires your response...
07/20/13 4:14 pm

No.
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.

wadenx requires your response...
07/20/13 4:16 pm

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.

Cruz2016 Rum Bum Beach City
07/20/13 4:59 pm

Insightful. Did you read the article on the link

Cruz2016 Rum Bum Beach City
07/20/13 1:19 pm

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.

4to12letter Republic of Texas
07/20/13 7:48 pm

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.