“Forensic Science” is an oxymoron.

The adjective “forensic” refers to debatable issues, not reality—opinions, not fact. The noun “science” derives from the Latin word for knowledge; it was first used in 1833 by an English “natural philosopher” (Whewell) to distinguish natural philosophy from other philosophy (not coincidentally because poet Coleridge warned him that his methodology ought to be distinguished from what daydreamers do).

When an expert witness takes the stand in a trial and calls himself a “forensic scientist” it ought to be a red flag that what he’s preparing to do is testify about his credentials to practice an art and then to express highly subjective opinions.

The Supreme Court and DNA

Last week at the eleventh hour the Supreme Court stayed the Texas execution of Hank Skinner in order to take a little time to consider whether a convict ought to have the right to examine the DNA evidence used against him in court.

This ought to give us all pause—it seems so obvious.

Last year the Supremes declared that prisoners do not have the right to demand that the cops test DNA they have in their archives.

How can this be? What bizarre logic is at work here? It’s simple. As Shakespeare said, “The law is an ass.”

The issue in the 2009 case (Alaska v Osborne), as I see it (and I am not a lawyer), was that the DNA was not presented as evidence in court. I guess the Supremes consider the evidence cops have on file as the government’s property and it can’t be “taken” for private purposes (only the government can take for public purposes).

Sidebar: The Osborne case is worth at least an article on its own. But there’s one point I have to mention here. The Supremes’ decision expressed concern about a flood of frivolous lawsuits flooding the court system for post-conviction access to evidence. Couldn’t a Supreme Court decision have been phrased so that such access is automatic and no lawsuit would be required? I suppose the Justices are so law-bound in their thinking they can’t imagine an issue that can be settled anywhere outside of a courtroom. Here’s a clue, Supremes: Think outside the courtroom.

The issue in the Skinner case is that the convict isn’t demanding that the state spend money on the tests; he has found a lab willing to conduct the tests for free.

Honestly, I can feel my blood-pressure rising as I contemplate this. So I’m going to stop writing.

It’s time the Supreme Court woke up to the indisputable fact that a courtroom is not a forum where facts are presented. A courtroom is a public-opinion forum.