Emme Kerj
Current event 1, forensics science
The article explains how a lab in Illinois has been making errors in their testing. More specifically, the article explains that a man hit a couple walking across the street claiming that the couple came out of nowhere however when the Illinois lab tested the driver they found him to be under the influence so the driver was therefore facing several years in federal prison. Later on when the driver’s lawyer examined the blood alcohol tests, however, he found them to be inaccurate. This called for a revision of the lab and their scientific methods and what they found out was that there had been multiple previous cases of inaccurate testing in the Illinois lab. After the driver’s lawyer showed these results to the prosecutor, he decided not to use the blood alcohol tests in the case and the driver was found innocent. The article also quotes the driver’s concern regarding the severity of the disorganization and mistakes made in the lab since he could have ended up in jail if the lawyer had not helped to prove that the tests were inaccurate. The article also explains what kind of errors had taken place in the lab: switched test samples, mislabeled specimen, mix up of results, improper calibrations of tests and samples that had been wrongly destroyed. According to “Ramsell” the biggest problem is that the lab has been lacking a procedure in which you extra check your results after conducting a test, which is a crucial component in a lab.
Something that shocked me about the article is that the state police was aware of the lack of validation for the scientific testing in the lab and they did not report it or do anything about it. I think that this article is relevant to most people because if you ever were to get arrested for something you didn’t do, you would want to be able to rely on that chemical testing in a lab would prove you innocent. I think it’s pretty scary that labs don’t take enough precautions in order to make sure that all testing is accurate and that there are no mix ups in the lab. I also think that if you take on the responsibility of working in a lab such as the state Illinois one, it is almost disrespectful to the people who are being tested if you are not organized.
Overall, I think that the lab did a good job explaining the incident however I would have liked to know more about what exactly it was that made the test inaccurate and if they ever did a retest or such. I also would have liked to know what the police meant by that their methods are widely accepted in the scientific field.
Goudie, Chuck, and Ann Pistone. "Forensic Failures at State Crime Labs May Jeopardize Cases." ABC7 Chicago. ABC 7, 23 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
7 comments:
One way that the review could be improved is by proofreading and being mindful of correct grammar to help the reader follow the context. At times there were run-on sentences that were difficult to follow because they presented multiple ideas at one time. Another thing that could improve the review would be to explain the sources being referred to. For example, there was a quote from a person named “Ramsell” but it was unclear who this was and why they were significant.
The post was strong in its presentation of what was shocking about the case. Namely, the lack of police action despite awareness of the problem. Another strong aspect of the post, was the detail and thoroughness of the case analysis. Finally, the post was formatted in a way that had good flow and was easy to follow. I was also impressed by the fact that such mistakes could be made in a state crime lab over the course of a few years.
Your analysis of the article was very thorough and brought to mind a very important topic. At first when you mentioned the lab had misconducted other reports I felt left on the edge as to what else they did wrong. When you explained it in the next paragraph I was reassured that you did your research well. I liked that you included the scientific community's point of view as well as your, but I would like to know what you think should be done about this. Another question that came up in my mind while reading this was, are there currently regulations on these labs' testing procedures? If so is there a chance that the lab could be sued for their lack of organization and repetitive inaccuracy. You brought up a strong controversial topic, but in doing so I think you could improve your report by mentioning the future of the issue.
To me it was clear that you picked an enjoyable article and did your research well.
Emme did a pretty good job in summarizing the article. She did a great job in talking about how Illinois has been making mistakes in their testing. She also did a good job in making the review of the article pretty easy to read and short. Lastly, she had a lot of thorough details of the case presented. One thing she could have improved is making her sentences shorter because some of the sentences were long. Another thing should could have improved is inserting a quote to either help her explain the article or an example. I had no idea that a lab in Illinois has been making errors in their testing over the past couple of years. Overall, I thought the review was done well.
I liked how in the review Emme explained very well why the evidence could have been wrong. Also Emme explained very well why mixing up chemical tests in a lab is so wrong and can cause damage to other people’s lives that could be innocent from the crime they are being accused of. Emme’s review of the article was also not confusing at all and she explained her opinion of the lab mix up very well. One thing I suggest is maybe talking about the other previous cases of inaccurate testing in the Illinois lab because in the article Emme talked about how there are some previous cases of inaccurate testing. The one other suggestion I can think of is to maybe give some more proof from the article like quotes because I didn’t see many in the review. Yet overall I think your review was fantastic. I could not believe that a lab could be so careless as to not double check their tests because the accused person could go to jail and their life would be ruined since the people at the lab didn’t do their job. I’m also shocked that the police knew about the Illinois lab not validating the scientific testing in their lab and the police didn’t report it.
Emme’s strongest point in her review was her critique of the article. Not only did she express her opinion of how the content of the article was presented by the author, but also she expresses her opposition to how the Illinois lab has made careless mistakes in their evidence analysis. Emme was able to take a specific example of testing errors in a single lab and expand that idea into the argument that errors like these affect everyone. She makes the point that if anyone were to get arrested for something they did not do, they would be heavily relying on chemical evidence. If lab experiments are being done incorrectly, this could result in throwing many innocent people in jail while the guilty walk away free of charge. Emme’s critique definitely captures her audience’s attention because she makes a point that connects the article to each one of us. She also did a very good job of summarizing the article to get a strong but basic idea of the consequences in making mistakes as the Illinois lab did. It was especially good that Emme specifically listed some of the other errors that have been made in that lab, because it shows her knowledge of the text in detail, while at the same time providing her readers with more insight into what could go wrong in lab experiments. If Emme were to do anything differently, maybe she could have added a little more detail about when the car accident occurred and how the lawyer was able to prove the tests inaccurate if they originally showed up positive for intoxication. The review lacks a timeline that could aid the reader in understanding how long it took the lawyer and the forensic scientists to revise the results. I am glad that Emme chose this article to share on the blog because it truly is alarming to discover that the labs that we rely on to aid the enforcement of justice are capable of making errors that could put an innocent man behind bars. Afterall, we believe that chemical evidence is more reliable than a witness’s word, so it is crucial that labs make sure that their tests are being conducted with serious precaution and accuracy. Although I am not a forensic scientist, this article reminded me that it is important to consider and review all evidence before jumping to conclusions in any situation.
Emme,
I enjoyed reading your review of the article “Forensic Failures at State Crime Labs May Jeopardize Cases.” One thing I enjoyed was your summary of the article. You quickly got to the point and only put the facts in that were necessary. I like how you cited a specific example of the mistakes occurring at crime labs. This gives the reader a better sense of understanding the problem. Lastly, I enjoyed how you shed light on an important topic that not many people think of. One thing you could maybe improve on is adding a quote or two from scientists in the community. This would allow the reader to gain more insight on this topic. Another thing you could improve on is telling the reader when these events occurred, and if any changes in laws resulted from these mistakes. One thing that I learned from your review is that there are many forensic failures resulting from crimes. You would think that there would be no mistakes made, but that is clearly wrong.
One of the things I liked about your review was how it was very detailed and thoroughly explained all of the important parts of the article, like when you mentioned the location, Illinois, in which this crisis took place. The explanation made the article very easy to understand. I also thought you did a great job at stating your opinion on the whole crisis. When you mentioned how shocked you were that such a great mistake could take place I truly realized how great this crisis is. Finally, I like how you noted the relevance of the subject of the article in society today. When you stated how it should be relevant for most people, I truly put myself in the shoes of the man who was almost sent to jail for this mishap, as I had not done while reading the explanation of the article. While there were many great things about this review, some of the things you could have done to improve it consist of fixing run on sentences, such as the sentence in which you describe the incident. This could help make the review a smoother reading. Secondly, I feel as though you could have cited who Ramsell was. When you mentioned his name I was not sure as to who he was and what his relevance was to the story before I read the article. Mentioning who he is could help the reader understand the situation a little better. Finally I was very shocked as well to see how often an innocent man is sentenced to any time in prison, as I too wrote about an article about wrongfully convicting innocent people for a crime they did not commit. This was a great review and made the article very easy to understand.
Post a Comment