Haberman, Clyde. “A Closer Look at the Evidence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Apr. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/retro-hair-analysis.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
In Clyde Haberman’s “A Closer Look at the Evidence,” he discusses how the National Commission on Forensic Science, which had been made up various scientists, as well as judges and lawyers, was put to an end in April of this year, 2017, by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The advisory panel was initially started by the previous President, Barack Obama, with the goal to improve forensic techniques, some of which include ballistics testing, evidence from bite- marks, shoe-print comparisons as well as blood typing and analysis of hair. However, Haberman mentions the fact that errors do occur in forensic crime labs, which sometimes, would lead to miscalculating the subject of a crime. According to Max M. Houck, a former forensics expert for the Bureau of Investigation, “About 11 percent of the time, mitochondrial DNA said: ‘No, that hair actually came from someone else.’” Haberman also mentions that in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences, stated, “‘no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.”’ Throughout Haberman’s article, he uses multiple examples from places such as a committee of the National Academy of Sciences to express how forensic evidence can be faulty, then causing those who may be innocent to be convicted of crimes.
Clyde Haberman’s article regarding evidence from forensic science is very relevant to our society. Forensic science, and DNA research is an important factor to being able to identify a suspect of a crime. Whether it be from trace evidence on objects and victims, hair analysis, ballistics testing, or other various techniques such as those mentioned in the article. With a rising crime rate, such as robberies, assaults and rape cases, in places such as Manhattan, the extensive use of forensic sciences is more present. However, without the National Commission on Forensic Science, it is questionable if the standard of laboratory work in labs will get better or worse.
I found this article interesting to read, as I was able to learn more about the current situation with forensic science. Haberman provided many sources of evidence to make his point that evidence from forensic science is not always accurate, such as findings from committee of the National Academy of Sciences. However, it appeared that the author focused mainly on the criticism of crime labs, and forensics. Also, perhaps the author could have provided more information on the National Commission on Forensic Science, as I would have wanted to know more about what their job was in a greater detail.
6 comments:
Michelle’s review of A Closer Look at the Evidence was a very interesting review. I liked how she was really thorough and gave details on the types of forensic techniques, citing various examples. This helped me understand just how many different types of techniques there are and strengthened her review as it helps the readers have a deep understanding of what she is talking about. In addition, the fact that she had a quote from Max M. Houck, incorporated into her review, aided me in understanding this topic better and gave me some additional, interesting information about it. Finally, the last thing that I thought Michelle did very well was giving us a detailed explanation of why this topic is important to the society and how it can affect our lives especially those who live in places where the crime rate is very high.
Although this review was extremely interesting, one way it could have been made better is that Michelle could have stated what the National Academy of Sciences deems “faulty forensic evidence.” This would have made the review more thorough, so by just a few sentences about this topic she could have avoided this problem. Moreover, I would have liked for her to talk more about why the National Commission on Forensic Science was stopped, as she just stated it and did not go into much details about it. By adding one or two more sentences about this topic she could have added even more details in her review.
Overall, this review was captivating and taught me about a topic that I was not familiar with. I had no idea there was such a thing as the National Commission on Forensic Science that existed. By reading Michelle review I learned new things and broadened my own knowledge about the types of forensics techniques and the reasons why they are sometimes faulty. Furthermore, this review showed me just how much change there is when a new President is elected.
I really enjoyed reading Michelle's review of A Closer Look at Evidence I thought it was simple but enough. A part that I thought was well presented is when she mentioned Jeff Sessions and how he put the National Commission of Forensic Science to an end this year in April, I can't speak for the other readers but I know this part of her review informed me greatly. When Michelle mentioned that 11% of Forensic results are miscalculated and not correct that was an extremely important detail and her adding it in to her review made it all that better. I liked how towards the end Michelle started to make us think about of forensics would start to improve or weaken because it is something we need to start thinking about.
Michelle's review was very well written but I would have liked for her to have mentioned how things can and do go wrong in Forensics, she mentioned the percentage but more detail is required. If Michelle would've gone further into detail with how Jeff Sessions shutting the National Commission of Forensic Science down and how it may affect forensics all together that could've been an interesting paragraph to read.
So many thing's have been happening around the world economically, politically and socially that I was surprised to find out about Jeff Session's decision. When Michelle went into what the National Commission of Forensic Science was that's when I started to really pay attention develop my own views on it because of how important it sounded from her descriptions.
Haberman, Clyde. “A Closer Look at the Evidence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Apr. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/retro-hair-analysis.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
In her review of the article A Closer Look at the evidence, Michelle did a good job explaining the specific details of the different forensics examining techniques, such as evidence from bite marks, shoe print comparisons, and blood typing. this really enabled me to picture the tests being done, how they could be miscalculated. next I like how she used a quote from Max M. Houck, an expert from the field as he was a former forensics expert for the Bureau of Investigation. since she put that quote in I was able to learn how miscalculations can be made. A third thing I think she did well in her review was how she related this problem to real life, she explained that faulty forensic examining can be a real problem in places like Manhattan.
In her review I feel like there could have been a little more background on the National Commission on Forensic Science. Another possible Improvement was explaining what changes can be made to improve the forensic labs so there can be more accurate data.
Overall I learned a lot from this review, I didn't even know there was such a thing as the National Commission on Forensic Science. Not only that but their forensic labs have not been the most accurate. this is eye opening for me because i would think that some of the best forensic scientists in the world would do everything perfectly.
Haberman, Clyde. “A Closer Look at the Evidence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Apr. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/retro-hair-analysis.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
In her review of the article A Closer Look at the evidence, Michelle did a good job explaining the specific details of the different forensics examining techniques, such as evidence from bite marks, shoe print comparisons, and blood typing. this really enabled me to picture the tests being done, how they could be miscalculated. next I like how she used a quote from Max M. Houck, an expert from the field as he was a former forensics expert for the Bureau of Investigation. since she put that quote in I was able to learn how miscalculations can be made. A third thing I think she did well in her review was how she related this problem to real life, she explained that faulty forensic examining can be a real problem in places like Manhattan.
In her review I feel like there could have been a little more background on the National Commission on Forensic Science. Another possible Improvement was explaining what changes can be made to improve the forensic labs so there can be more accurate data.
Overall I learned a lot from this review, I didn't even know there was such a thing as the National Commission on Forensic Science. Not only that but their forensic labs have not been the most accurate. this is eye opening for me because i would think that some of the best forensic scientists in the world would do everything perfectly.
This week I’m reviewing Michelle’s current event on the article “A Closer Look At The Evidence” by Clyde Haberman. The article talks about how forensic evidence isn't always reliable. The first thing that surprised me was that the National Commision on Forensic Sciences was ended. This was justified because the reason the council was made was to better forensics sciences, but there is no 100% effective forensic analysis. Although, I feel like it would be good to still have the commision to help regulate forensic procedures and test new analysis tests to see if they would be more reliable than others. I also thought it was weird that 11% of the time hair in forensic cases were from no one at the scene of the crime. Finally, I liked that Michelle related the article to other current events, such as the rising crime rate.
The review Michelle wrote was really well written, but there were a few things that she could have done to let the reader understand the article better. The first thing I noticed was that she lacked any example of how evidence wasn't always clear. She did mention a quote on the subject, but never a real life example from a scene of the crime or a court case. By adding an example it could have made the article better understood. The second thing Michelle could've done better was explain more about the Commission on Forensic Sciences as she just briefly talked about it then moved onto another point.
This article was really interesting and insightful to read. First, I didn't know a council on forensic sciences was actually a thing. I also didn't know how much of forensic science isn't entirely accurate. I did know that it was sometimes faulty, but I didn't know the extent of it or the severe outcomes it could have. Overall, it was a very eye opening article and was well done.
Isabella Dibbini
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event #3
30 September 2017
Haberman, Clyde. “A Closer Look at the Evidence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Apr. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/retro-hair-analysis.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FForensic%2BScience&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection.
Michelle wrote an great review of the article “A Closer Look at the Evidence,” by Clyde Haberman. To start with, Michelle developed an accurate summary of this article. For example, she starts her review by discussing that the National Commission on Forensic Science was stopped in April of this year. Also, Michelle does a great job of incorporating quotes from the article to support her claims. For instance, she quotes both Max Houck, a former forensics expert for the Bureau of Investigation, and Haberman, the author of this article. Lastly, I was impressed by the connections Michelle made between the article and its affect on society. She stated “Forensic science, and DNA research is an important factor to being able to identify a suspect of a crime,” and further elaborated this point.
Overall, Michelle’s report is very well written, however, there are a few things that she could improve. To start with, she incorporated many quotes, but I wished she would have explained them more. For example, she included a quote said by Max Houck, however she did not go on to further elaborate the meaning behind this statement. In addition, I would have liked to have seen Michelle explain more about the National Commission on Forensic Science. By adding just a little more detail to this review, it would make it even better.
By reading this article I expanded my knowledge on forensic science. Prior to reading this review, I was unaware of the National Commission on Forensic Science. Overall, Michelle’s review is very good and shows a great understanding of this article.
Post a Comment