Unbiased Observations

Unbiased Observations 

For the result of an observation to be unbiased, it’s important that the scientist considers both that the suspect might be guilty or innocent with an equal amount of effort. Investigators hope that their suspect is guilty of the crime committed. Hence, justice depends on that the scientific proof is unaffected by their eager anticipation, Ian Everett, a statistician, explains in “The logical foundations of forensic science: Towards reliable knowledge”1. 

Unfortunately, scientists are hired by the prosecution to make the suspect appear guilty, regardless if innocent. The cost for the suspect to locate and hire private scientists to prove their innocence is usually far out of reach of their means. For observations to progress, so does the understanding of probability depending on knowledge, since the result might vary by each scientist.

The more knowledge that becomes available changes the result of the discovery. While the scientist is concerned with the probability of the observation and its circumstances, the trial juror ponders the probabilities of the presented evidence. Personal circumstances are often used to back data conclusions and need to include eyewitnesses since the court or a juror is not qualified to fully understand scientific observations. 

Scientific opinion is also restricted by the policy when there is no evidence found by the scientist in favor of the prosecution, and the scientist is not entitled to publicly admit their conclusion. The public defender is working against a flawed funding scheme, which does not allow any funds for the scientific investigation to clear the suspect and not more than a few minutes to prepare for the case.  The biased approach financially drains the court to prove the prosecutor’s assumptions valid while in violation of constitutional laws, including the sixth amendment as it delays the case and renders a suspect automatically guilty by the overwhelming scientific work against their innocence.

If there is any at all remote possibility that the suspect is guilty, the prosecution can state that the conclusion is that it could be possible. Therefore, it would help the scientist to find evidence that relates to the activities that mostly concern the jury. Fingerprints have an unbiased interpretation because it uses a positivity comparison conclusion of either an inconclusive, elimination or identification outcome. Hence, the identification outcome renders the conclusion entirely certain. Although, fingerprints can also be used against the persons will and even after they are dead.

A specialist may defend or argue the reliability of a conclusion, which is particularly costly for the defense, and mistakes are often made against the best interest of the suspect. In response, Everett initiated a quantitative likelihood ratio used to express the evidential weight for court evidence. While making the observations, the scientist also needs to clearly interpret their findings to those without scientific expertise. The factors of influence then also need to be further evaluated in order to eliminate the systemic flaws of wrongful convictions. 

“The trouble with experience is a way of approximating to reliable knowledge is that all of us tend to reinterpret each individual experience in the light of a previously held conceptual framework.”(Baum 1983)

Because two reliable and extensively trained experts on science often have opposing views of the conclusion, experience alone is not considered a reliable source. Since there is not an easily accessible database for handwriting, facial or footwear comparison, conclusions are based on subjective methods, and the court is left to rely on individual knowledge while making evaluations.

The intrinsic nature of probability consists of the logical framework including shared developments. By sharing and contributing to structured database systems, cases with similar circumstances can be solved with increased probability. When a new development unfolds, the assessment can be added to the database. These knowledge-based systems are referred to as Bayesian networks. Recently, the new mathematical biometric systems added include facial and speech likelihood comparison methods. 

Forensic providers are still funded by the police department and their evidential scientific conclusions are still restricted by procedural policy, budget and timeframe requirements. Forensic science is now being developed from the Bayesian paradigm and into epistemology, which is a database programmed to evaluate evidence into rational assessments without prosecution and defense bias. Since the population genetic data is one component, epistemology is a structure of constant change and required maintenance.

The robot forensic scientist will be a most powerful witness, programmed to also calculate if the incident was a crime based on the situation, circumstances, and history. If the suspect had an option, if it was in their character, or if they were framed. The mission of social work is to eliminate the conditions of human suffering, but they are also paid by the same source that provides for the police and the evidence against the oppressed and exploited suspect. 

Structural forces in opposition to a constitutionally enforced democracy create social injustice, which creates political wars. This has led to a catastrophic systemic mass incarceration scheme of many innocent for political cause and profiteering. The purpose of epistemology is to submerge the current lack of political values that attribute to social inequality. Biased observations are the outcome of many traumatized voters who prefer inaction on all critical issues.

Works Cited

1. Everett, Ian. “The Logical Foundations of Forensic Science: Towards Reliable Knowledge.” 

Philosophical Translations: Biological Sciences, vol. 370, no. 1674, 2015, 1-10., 


Be the first to post a comment.