Liam Grealy
November 7th
Forensics
Current Event #6
Mr. Ippolito
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm.
According to the article it says that in court that fingerprints do not solely prove a person's guilt. They are only enough to give reasonable doubt, other evidence must be present to prove someone is guilty. It talks about the quality of latent fingerprint analysis says that courtroom testimony and reports stating or even implying that fingerprints collected from a crime scene belong to a single person are indefensible and lack scientific foundation. "Fingerprinting is one of the most heavily used forensic methods. Routinely, fingerprint analysts report and testify to 'identification,' that is, that the person who left the mark at the crime scene is the same person whose fingerprint is in the database,” Fingerprint analysis is used to help find criminals and it is kind of shocking that now it has been disproven despite a lot of evidence saying that there is only one individual per set of prints.
The fact that fingerprints are no longer viewed as a key piece of evidence are a little weird as there are many parts of forensics which already aren't viewed in high light but fingerprints are pretty universally agreed upon. “Forensic science is an important tool for investigating crime and helping to determine guilt or innocence at trial, but questions have been raised about the validity and reliability of many forensic disciplines. A crucial National Research Council report issued in 2009 noted that most forensic disciplines have not been subjected to rigorous scientific study. And there is no way to know which aspects of these disciplines were based on a solid scientific footing and which were not.” This reiterated how it seems like almost all of forensics is getting a bad rep in the world of criminal justice.
My only real complaint is that this article doesn't go into more detail and use a real case as an example. I feel like it would have made the case more personal and left the reader more affected, It almost draws attention away as the there is no real case to make me think about and to either agree or disagree with, I have always taken fingerprints as pretty sound evidence. This really got me thinking how different can a set of fingerprints be that will make them believe that a set of prints is not suitable information in a case/
11 comments:
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm.
Liam’s review of “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty” was a very interesting review. First of all, it really helped that he stated why exactly fingerprints are not deemed good evidence and why they lack scientific foundation. In addition, the fact that he had a quote from the article incorporated in his review gave me some additional information about it. Finally, Liam did a really good job on going even further into the topic and talking about why this topic is important for our society, talking about the National Research Council report that was issued in 2009.
Although this review was very interesting, one way it could have been made better is that Liam could have gone back through the review and checked for spelling and grammar errors so that the review was more sophisticated. By reading it over, he could have avoided this problem and made his review more coherent. Moreover, I would have added more information on the exact reasons why fingerprints are not very helpful anymore. By adding one or two sentences about that topic he could have made her review even more thorough.
Overall, this review was captivating and thought-provoking. I had never heard about this problem with fingerprint techniques, so I was intrigued when I read Liam’s review. Thus, learning about this was very enlightening and taught me many new things. Reading this review made me realize that techniques that were once deemed useful can quickly change and new techniques are sometimes needed to replace old ones.
Martha Thomas
11/13/2017
Forensics Comment Liam Grealy- Fingerprints lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm.
Liam’s current events report was good because he provided lots details from the article and a quote. I agree with Liam that the author could have used an anecdote in the article to better connect with readers. Liam’s report has a good structure making it easy to follow because of his clear topic sentences.
Liam could have improved his report by writing more analysis of the long and confusing quote he included. Liam also could have given more summary of the article before delving into the details of fingerprint flaws. Liam also posted this review at 2:13 am, which is way past his bedtime, and I might have to call his mom about this.
I learned a lot from Liam’s report, I am very upset that the inaccurate fingerprint method has been used in the criminal justice system for so long.
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm.
In Liam's review of the article "Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty" he did a good job providing evidence from article. He also used a quote from the article that talks about using fingerprints in forensic science. He also used a quote that explains that forensic science is a very important tool in crime scene investigation. He also did a good job finding the main idea of the article and explaining how important it is to the real world.
Liam could have done a better job making the review less confusing, and there were a couple of grammar and spelling mistakes.
Overall I learned a lot about the current situation forensic science is in right now. That there are many procedures in crime scene investigation that are inaccurate and don't work which shouldn't be happening.
YiFei Wu
Mr. Ippolito
11.15.2017
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm.
Liam did a really good job of providing a decent amount of details in his article, telling audiences about the truth. " "Fingerprinting is one of the most heavily used forensic methods. Routinely, fingerprint analysts report and testify to 'identification,' that is, that the person who left the mark at the crime scene is the same person whose fingerprint is in the database,” Fingerprint analysis is used to help find criminals and it is kind of shocking that now it has been disproven despite a lot of evidence saying that there is only one individual per set of prints. " In this quote, he not only tells us the situation but also gave quotes from the original article in order to provide details. He has a great structure of putting information together. Third, I think his logic of Forensic Science is a really important tool in crime scene investigation. He could improve his article by writing longer comments on the original post. He could also summarize the article at first.
Overall, I learned a lot from this article and Forensic tools from a crime scene is really important in our daily life as well.
He did a great job summarizing this article as well as telling us the significance of crime scene investigation related to our daily life.
Maggie Miller
Current Event Comment 8
Forensics A/B odd
November 15, 2017
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm
Liam Grealy recently submitted a review on the article, “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.” The article is about how fingerprints can’t serve as the only piece of evidence to prove a person guilty in a criminal trial. Liam provided an excellent use of quotes, which helped provide explanations of the articles focus. Liam also properly organized his writing into three paragraphs, following the rubric guidelines, which provided good flow to read through. Liam also provided a great connection to our lives, considering this is a topic we discuss often in class.
However, Liam used a tone in his writing that was a bit too casual for a written work, using phrases like “a little weird” and “pretty universal,” etc. Second, if Liam had provided examples of where this issue came into play in an actual trial, it might have helped readers understand better.
Nonetheless this review and article were very interesting and relevant to our world. Before reading this article, I was under the impression that fingerprints were undeniable evidence, so was surprised by this information.
Liam's response too the article he read about fingerprints and there role in the courtroom. The articles purpose was to show how they can not truly prove a persons guilt. I completely disagree with this and think that fingerprints and DNA evidence and can prove a persons guilt in a court of law. Liam addressed the purpose right away and put together a great article and weighed in on his opinion and made al lot of sense. These articles come up A LOT BUT ARE SO IMPORTANT and should be looked at every day. The only way to improve as a society when it comes to matters like these is too address them and make sure that they are being looked at. His best point was "The fact that fingerprints are no longer viewed as a key piece of evidence are a little weird as there are many parts of forensics which already aren't viewed in high light but fingerprints are pretty universally agreed upon." A really solid article and review from Liam.
I would only say that the evidence from the article itself could have been used a little more because it had some great points. Taking nothing away from Liam's review it was great!
Liam's response too the article he read about fingerprints and there role in the courtroom. The articles purpose was to show how they can not truly prove a persons guilt. I completely disagree with this and think that fingerprints and DNA evidence and can prove a persons guilt in a court of law. Liam addressed the purpose right away and put together a great article and weighed in on his opinion and made al lot of sense. These articles come up A LOT BUT ARE SO IMPORTANT and should be looked at every day. The only way to improve as a society when it comes to matters like these is too address them and make sure that they are being looked at. His best point was "The fact that fingerprints are no longer viewed as a key piece of evidence are a little weird as there are many parts of forensics which already aren't viewed in high light but fingerprints are pretty universally agreed upon." A really solid article and review from Liam.
I would only say that the evidence from the article itself could have been used a little more because it had some great points. Taking nothing away from Liam's review it was great!
Olivia Lewis
Current Event 8
Forensics
Ippolito
11/16/17
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm
For this current event Liam Grealy wrote a review of an article that concerned the accuracy of fingerprinting. Overall, I think that Liam’s review was very thought out and organized, and easy to follow. Liam also did a good job of providing quotes from the article that made his review very clear. Finally, I agree with his critique of the article, how it should include examples of specific cases where fingerprint evidence was not enough to prove someone guilty.
However, I think that to improve his review, Liam could have included how this information might relate to what we are learning in class and how it affects the forensic science community. I also think that a more detailed summary of the article would have helped his review to be easier to understand.
I found the information that was presented in this article very informational as I had thought that fingerprints were completely reliable, however this article clearly shows that they are not.
Timmy McGrath
Bronxville School
Current Event #8
November 15th, 2017
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm
Liam reviewed the article “Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty”. His review was very detailed and that helped the reader go through and understand clearly what he was talking about. It also helped the reader understand what the problem was better. He also provided great transitions that helped the review flow and kept the reader interested in what he was talking about. He also did a great job of explaining the main idea and how it fits into real-world situations and how it could affect people that we know.
Liam while overall doing a great job could have provided a more in-depth analysis of the quote that he provided. There were also some grammatical errors that could have been fixed.
Overall this review was very insightful into the method of fingerprinting and how it works. I think that the fact that fingerprints could be wrong could provide a lot of trouble for lawyers in trying to keep prisoners from claiming false imprisonment.
Kelsey Ravesloot
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm.
Liam reviewed the article “Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty”. I liked how Liam critiqued the article and put his thoughts on what the author did both good and bad. I also thought Liam’s review was well structured, which made it easier to read and understand. Lastly I think Liam did a good job at explaining the main and idea and providing the background of the article.
One thing that Liam could have done better was include quotes to bring in more facts from the article. Another thing Liam could have done better was look over his review more and fix some grammar and spelling mistakes.
Overall I think Liam did a good job, minus some minor mistakes. I learned more about fingerprints and the process through this article which it pretty interesting.
Jack Baxter
Current Event Comment
Forensics D Even
11/16/17
Carnegie Mellon University. “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.”ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 5 Oct. 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005111100.htm.
Liam Grealy’s review on “Fingerprints Lack Scientific Basis for Legal Certainty.” was very good and interesting. He did many things well in this review, one of which is his fluidity. Throughout reading this review I had no trouble following what he was saying which allowed me to obtain a further understanding of the material he was discussing with ease. He also provided great transitions that helped the review flow and kept the reader interested in what he was talking about. Finally, he did a very good job summarizing and explaining the main idea of the article in depth which was a crucial aspect in the reader's ability to understand the material he was talking about.
While he was very good at providing a detailed description of the main idea of the passage, he could have also provided the same level of detailed analysis for the quote that he used. Doing so would have truly shown its importance in the article. Also, while this is not as big of a fault, there were some minor grammatical errors that could be corrected. Doing so would help his review flow better.
Overall the review and article were both very interesting and relevant to our world and class. Before reading this article, I was under the impression that fingerprints were undeniable evidence, so was surprised by this information.
Post a Comment