司法科学：存在错误的审判
What appears to be accepted science in the courtroom may not be accepted science among scientists.
法庭上能够被接受的科学可能并不是科学家们所接受的科学。
撰文/播音：史蒂夫·米尔斯基（Steve Mirsky）
翻译：郭鑫鹏
审校：杨枭
“We have increasing doubt about this evidence, but we don’t feel yet that we have the scientific knowledge and basis to exclude it altogether.”
“我们越来越怀疑这个证据，但是我们并不觉得我们有科学知识和依据来排除它。”
Jed Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. He spoke about forensic evidence-and the need for it to actually be based in science-at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston on February 18th.
在2月18日波士顿举办的年度美国科学促进会上，纽约南区地区法官杰德·雷科夫（Jed Rakoff）说道。他所谈论的是司法证据，以及它所依据的科学。
In 2009 the National Academy of sciences issued a report critical of a lot of the forensic evidence in the courtroom.
2009年国家科学院发表了一篇报告，批评了大量法庭上的司法证据。
“Most fundamentally…the report said that what was really lacking was testing and research. And thus they questioned whether any of this could be called science and they also questioned whether it was really that accurate…
“最根本上的是……这个报告指出真正缺失的是测试和调查。因此他们质疑这些证据是否能够被称作科学以及它是否准确……”
But forensic evidence is still widely admitted, even when the science behind it may be lacking.
但是司法证据依然被广泛承认，即使它背后缺乏科学的支持。
I think courts continue, despite their doubts, to admit this evidence…and that is still the feeling…that, eh, it’s still better that nothing, it’s still useful evidence, it has some degree of objectivity that’s not present in much lay testimony. And therefore it is useful. The problem of course is it comes heralded as science, and that gives it a weight that is probably disproportionate.
我认为虽然受到他们的质疑，法庭依然会承认这些证据……这就像是……至少比什么都没有好，它依然是有用的证据，它有一定的客观性且没有很多虚假证词。因此它是有用的。问题是它被标上了科学的标签，这给它带来了不相称的分量。
I had a case, this was before the National Academy report, but it’s sort of illustrative of what I’m talking about…United States versus Glynn. In that case, the government put on a tool-mark expert to testify that the markings on the shell that had been found at the scene of the crime matched the markings inside the barrel of the gun that had been found under the defendant’s bed…and I asked him, for example, what’s your error rate and what’s the error rate of this methodology that you’re using. And he said zero. And I said zero? And he said yes. And I said how can it be zero. And he said well, in every case I’ve testified, the guy’s been convicted.”
我有一个案子，虽然发生在作国家科学院报告之前，但可以对我说的东西做出某种说明……美国对格林（政府对个人）。在这个案件中，政府让一名弹道检测专家来检测犯罪现场发现的弹壳与被告人床底发现的枪膛是否一致……然后我问他，比如，你的错误率和你所使用方法的错误率是多少？他说是零。我问他完全为零？他说是的。我说怎么可能是零。他说，在每次我检测的情况下，被告人都是有罪的。“
-Steve Mirsky
京ICP备11000850号-1 
京公网安备11010502039775号
信息网络传播视听节目许可证0111611号
国家科技基础条件平台
© 2011- 版权所有：中国数字科技馆 未经书面许可任何人不得复制或镜像
未经书面许可任何人不得复制或镜像
京ICP备11000850号-1
京公网安备11010502039775号 信息网络传播视听节目许可证0111611号
国家科技基础条件平台