I’ve previously written about the cognitive bias problem in state crime labs. This is the bias that can creep into the work of crime lab analysts when they report to, say, a state police agency, or the state attorney general. If they’re considered part of the state’s “team” — if performance reviews and job assessments are done by police or prosecutors — even the most honest and conscientious of analysts are at risk of cognitive bias. Hence, the countless and continuing crime lab scandals we’ve seen over the last couple decades. And this of course doesn’t even touch on the more blatant examples of outright corruption.
In a new paper for the journal Criminal Justice Ethics, Roger Koppl and Meghan Sacks look at how the criminal justice system actually incentivizes wrongful convictions. In their section on state crime labs, they discover some astonishing new information about how many of these labs are funded.
Funding crime labs through court-assessed fees creates another channel for bias to enter crime lab analyses. In jurisdictions with this practice the crime lab receives a sum of money for each conviction of a given type. Ray Wickenheiser says, ‘‘Collection of court costs is the only stable source of funding for the Acadiana Crime Lab. $10 is received for each guilty plea or verdict from each speeding ticket, and $50 from each DWI (Driving While Impaired) and drug offense.’’
In Broward County, Florida, ‘‘Monies deposited in the Trust Fund are principally court costs assessed upon conviction of driving or boating under the influence ($50) or selling, manufacturing, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance ($100).’’
Several state statutory schemes require defendants to pay crime laboratory fees upon conviction. North Carolina General Statutes require, ‘‘[f]or the services of’’ the state or local crime lab, that judges in criminal cases assess a $600 fee to be charged ‘‘upon conviction’’ and remitted to the law enforcement agency containing the lab whenever that lab ‘‘performed DNA analysis of the crime, tests of bodily fluids of the defendant for the presence of alcohol or controlled substances, or analysis of any controlled substance possessed by the defendant or the defendant’s agent.’’
Illinois crime labs receive fees upon convictions for sex offenses, controlled substance offenses, and those involving driving under the influence. Mississippi crime labs require crime laboratory fees for various conviction types, including arson, aiding suicide, and driving while intoxicated.
Similar provisions exist in Alabama, New Mexico, Kentucky, New Jersey, Virginia, and, until recently, Michigan.
Other states have broadened the scope even further. Washington statutes require a $100 crime lab fee for any conviction that involves lab analysis. Kansas statutes require offenders ‘‘to pay a separate court cost of $400 for every individual offense if forensic science or laboratory services or forensic computer examination services are provided in connection with the investigation.’’
In addition to those already listed, the following states also require crime lab fees in connection with various conviction types: Arizona, California, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
Think about how
these fee structures play out in the day-to-day work in these labs.
Every analyst knows that a test result implicating a suspect will result
in a fee paid to the lab. Every result that clears a suspect means no
fee. They’re literally being paid to provide the analysis to win
convictions. Their findings are then presented to juries as the careful,
meticulous work of an objective scientist.
No wonder there have been so many scandals. I’m sure we’ll continue to see more.
[–]ashtrix
Another reason why there should be independent testing. There's just too much bias and too much to gain with the current setup.
[–]DominantChord
This is one of the things as a non-US citizen that has struck me. The lack of independent testing is such an oversight, that it is really damaging. Incredible that a country that on many levels has decent institutions are on par with dictatorships here. I mean: "We give you a bonus if you find results that helps convinction" is damn close to "take this guy away and execute him". It is just criminally insane.
[–]BobbieRose64
This is just so wrong...... There shouldn't be any payment incentive for convictions. It means so many innocent people's lives are ruined because a lab wants money. There is no incentive for a fair and just system.
[–]Confanci
I'll double their price if you help me skate on this murder charge.
Seriously, at some point, no one will even bother to actually test things anymore.
[–]ScousePie
This answers my question of "why would Culhane want to participate in a conspiracy to convict?"
[–]Hubert_J_Cumberdale[S]
In this case, I don't think SC was any more likely than anyone else from the lab to produce a "winning" result. I think they are ALL equally motivated to help secure a conviction - especially when they are directly told "Put the victim in the suspect's garage" by the prosecutor.
[–]impracticalwench
I think it's unforgivable to use the same forensic 'expert' who wrongly attributed to Avery in 1985. To me, that just feels malicious and screams conflict of interest. Imagine being on trial a second time for something you didn't commit and the very same person that 'found' against you is handpicked by the prosecution to place the victim in your garage. Sickening.
[–]solunaView
It's easy to see why this practice is done. It's an effort to save the taxpayers money by only charging "the guilty" to support state crime labs. Nevermind that this creates an obvious conflict of interest and completely discourages impartiality. Guessing performance reviews are based on "right" analyses too.
How much was SC paid to place TH in the garage despite a contaminated sample? How much to "find" useable human tissue on item BZ and to then go way overboard and exaggerate the FBI findings in identifying TH remains?
(Disclosure: In 2008, Koppl and I co-wrote an article for Slate on how to fix some of these problems.)
No comments:
Post a Comment