L. Reetz
A man named Curvis Bickham was recently released from an eight-month jail sentence through the evidence of a dog’s sniff. After a dog-scent lineup, Bickham was convicted of a triple homicide. During a dog-scent lineup, the dogs are exposed to different items’ scents found at the crime scene and walk by a series of containers with samples from one suspect and others not involved in the crime. If the dog finds a match, he will begin barking, signaling that he has found a criminal. For some time now, FBI agencies have used dogs to help track down people involved with drugs, explosives, and other crimes.
This technique, however, does not always seem to be entirely accurate because in some cases other evidence proves something different from what the dog discovers. For instance, one man named Ronald Curtis, was jailed after a scent lineup for shoplifting when the store videos showed someone not resembling Curtis at all. In Bickham’s case, he was sent to jail for eight months because of a scent lineup until another man confessed to the crime. Both Curtis and Bickham are now filing civil lawsuits against their cases. Although dog-scent lineups do prove to be accurate in some instances, they have been wrong numerous times and thus should be used “only to corroborate other evidence.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/us/04scent.html?ref=science
14 comments:
The article, “Picked From a Lineup, on a Whiff of Evidence,” was a very interesting as it depicts the use of dogs in crime scene investigations. One fact well presented is the process performed in a dog-scent lineup. By smelling the evidence and the suspects the dog can link similar smells together by barking. As well, we are informed that this use of inspection is for cases related to drugs, explosives, and other crimes. Finally, it has been proven that dog-scent lineups are not one hundred percent correct. Innocent people have been sent to jail due to dog-scent lineups.
One issue with the article is that the case of a crime cannot be truly determined by a dog-scent lineup. The reader would think that other evidence presented would have a significant affect. Another suggestion would be to further explain how dog-scent lineups should be used “only to corroborate other evidence. Otherwise, the article was intriguing and I was surprised to learn that dogs could be wrong, despite their strong sense of smell.
Larissa summarized the article "Picked From a Lineup, on a Whiff of Evidence." This article was very intriguing because it uses dogs to pick out suspects. One interesting fact was that dogs are used in cases relating to drugs, explosives, etc.... Also, the fact that dog-scent lineups are not always correct, causing many innocent people to be sent to jail, caught my attention. One thing that could have been presented better is explaining to the reader that dog-scent lineups are not 100% accurate and cannot be relied on for closing a case. In addition, it could have been explained that dogs are better off being used as an addition to something else, like an actual person; it is too much "power" being put in a dog's "hands". I learned from this article that because so many people trust dogs, they are quick to assume that they cannot be wrong.
The article, “Picked From a Lineup, on a whiff of Evidence,” was very thought-provoking, this article talks about a dogs role in crime scene investigation. One thing I enjoyed about the review is the detailed presentation of how dogs are used in cases involving explosives, drugs or other crimes. This review was also not biased because it conceded that dog-scent lineups are not always accurate. I also found it very interesting that the review stated that innocent people have been sent to jail because of this. This was both disturbing and shocking to me.
One problem with the review is the fact that dog-scent lineups are not 100 percent, yet they are presented as fool-proof ways to tell if someone is carrying an illegal substance. This review also could have used a few more facts or statistics to add to its credibility. Finally, I was shocked by the fact that innocent people have been put in jail due to an imperfect science.
3 Aspects that I found well presented
1)The article presents an interesting aspect on a new way of how to link criminals to items at a crime scene.
2) Larissa’s overview presented the reader with a clear picture of how this process of identification works.
3)The review was written very accurately in an easy to understand, though not too simple fashion.
2 Aspects that could have been improved
1) I would have liked to have known a little bit more about the history of canine use.
2) There could have been more elaboration on the legality of the civil suits brought about by the dogs making false identifications.
1 thing I learned
I assumed that since dogs have such strong and accurate senses of smell, that such a method is flawless. It was interesting to learn that it is not, and that even the sharpest and most well trained gods can make errors.
The article, “Picked From a Lineup, on a whiff of Evidence,” was very interesting with its explanation of dogs in crime scene evidence. one interesting fact was how dogs can be used to track drugs, explosives, etc. I was very intrigued by the explanation of dog scent line ups, and the third was the overall presentation of the article. One obvious issue is that fact that, despite how interesting dog line ups may be, they cannot be completely trusted. It should have also been explained more that dogs should be used in addition to something else in an investigation. Otherwise, the article was intriguing and I was surprised to learn that dogs could still be used in this decade, as I was under the impression that they were no longer needed due to newer technology.
This is a very interesting article, about how they use dogs to help catch criminals. Information that is presented well is the way they perform in a dog lineup. They can catch anything from hand held weapons to drugs. The problem with this is that it is not a 100 percent guarantee that the dogs are correct. I learned from this article that people put way to much trust into a dog, and they are just animals.
Interesting apects:
1) She was very good at giving us an overview of how identification works
2) It was interesting to learn how dogs can help with crimes
3) The explanation of dog scent line ups
Improvements:
1) Could have been told that these dog scent lineups are not always accurate so they will not always help with the case
2) More imfo talking about the dogs and there history
Learned:
1) I thought that now adays technology is so advanced that we don't even need dogs to help with cases, but turns out we do
wow larissa A++ on that blog. where did that come from haha NICE JOB.
1. this article astounds me so i can't believe they actually jail someone based off of dog sniff evidence.
2. nice job corroborating the fact that this is ridiculous and cannot be constitutional.
3. nice job summarizing the story you really showed your true potential as a fantastic blogger.
1. i would like to know what happens as these two victims of law try to stand up to this injustice.
2. and perhaps more facts of how the canine is used in the forensics world.
1. i was amazed at the fact that some inferior creature like a dog can incriminate someone for their whole lives. something that cannot speak can condem one man to jail. this is ridiculous and thank god someone's doing something about it.
1. I found it very interesting that dogs can link similar smells by barking.
2. Also, I found it surprising that many times dogs make mistakes. This was surprising to me because i realized there may have been many cases in which innocent people were convicted because of errors the dogs made.
3. Also, this review was not biased because it not only says dogs can be helpful, it says they can be mistaken too.
1. It would have been interesting to learn how popular dogs are in crime scene use, and when police first started using them.
2. The article could be improved if Larissa had stressed the fact that other forms should be used to investigate.
1. I found this article very interesting because before i had read it i had always wondered how helpful dogs really were to crime scenes. This article enlightened me.
Three things i liked about this article were...
3. I enjoyed that dogs are used in drug related cases and also for explosives.
2. Also, that the dogs are not always correct, but many people have been sent to jail because of dogs scents.
1. Also, this article was well written without bias and it explained the point well.
2. To improve this article, more information could be given on the history of dogs and how their job in forensics was started.
1. Another thing, is maybe to give an example of a time that dogs have put someone in jail that is innocent.
1. One thing i learned, was that dogs can be wrong in their search. And that people have actually been thrown in jail because of it.
Three Aspects:
3. I liked how this article explained how dogs are used to find criminals.
2. I found it interesting that the dogs can seperate the evidence based on smell.
1. I was amazed that the man was jailed for 8 months for a crime he didnt commit.
Improvements:
2. The article could have explained more how the dogs are able to do this
1. The article also could have explained how hte dogs make such a large mistake.
Found Interesting:
I found it interesting that even though dogs have such a kean sense of smell they can still make such a large mistake that it would cost an innocent man 8 months of his life because the dogs messed up.
I liked how Larissa explained specific cases in which dog sniffing was used as evidence to falsely accuse people of crimes. Secondly, she thoroughly explained the method in which dogs are trained to seek out the criminal holding a certain scent. I also liked how she brought in other details about the story such as the fact that Curtis was in jail for 8 months before he was released.
One thing I would like to know is why the dog barked if the guy didn’t even resemble the true criminal…
Also I would like to know more about whether other cases are being reviewed, now that sniff evidence has been proven to be a poor method.
I learned that dogs are used so often to convict people of crimes, though clearly they are not as dependable as expected.
This review was presented with seemingly the entire picture of the dog sniffing lineup technique, giving the pros, cons, an example, and an opinion. It was clear and easily understandable. This review, in it's simplicity shed light upon a new way to link criminals to items at a crime scene. What could have been improved upon this review was an elaboration upon the legal suits these two wrongly accused men are attempting to bring up, as well as a more of a history on canine use.
I learned from this post that even the most trained and sharpest noses that can be utilized for this can still make errors, not only that but numerous errors.
1)It was very interesting to learn how dogs can help with crimes
2)this articl was not biased because it not only says dogs can be helpful, it says they can be mistaken too.
3) The article presents an interesting aspect on a new way of how to link criminals to items at a crime scene.
1)It would have been interesting to learn a little bit more about the history of canine use.
2)It also would have been interesting to learn when police first started using canines.
1)I had always wondered exactly hw helpful dogs really were to crime scenes, I had orginally assumed that since dogs have such strong and accurate senses of smell, that such a method would be flawless. It was interesting to learn that it is the opposite, and that even the sharpest and most well trained dogs can indeed make misakes
Post a Comment