Lawyers and Science - they can't remain separate
If you've read any of the posts on this blog you know I have an interest in how forensics are used in the criminal justice system. When I first started law school the standard joke was that you went to law school because you flunked science. Many lawyers took that to heart, and made no attempt to understand the science. Granted, it wasn't used that often. But when it was, everyone usually accepted what the "scientist" said.
There's no doubt that has changed over the years. We now know that just because someone is scientist, or has some advanced degree, doesn't make them infallible. We also know that much was portrayed as science is not as accurate as they claimed. There is a lot more subjectivity involved than anyone would have guessed.
Thankfully, education is now available. Texas has one of the best forensic seminars around, and it is put on annually by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. The National Association also has had several programs dealing with forensics in the last few years. What brought this to mind was seeing an article by an author with the Wisconsin Bar Association entitled Forensic evidence: Do criminal lawyers need science training on principles and methods?
The answer is obviously year, and I hope all criminal defense lawyers are taking advantage of every opportunity they can to learn more about the forensic sciences. If they do, then the justice system may just work like it should - and not blindly accept the opinions of the scientists who have for too long have gone unchallenged.
