tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post912512480681208586..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Texas habeas law needs updating to accomodating changing scienceGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-80615993675497440502012-10-02T10:07:45.948-05:002012-10-02T10:07:45.948-05:00You attributed that quote to me, 9:51, but it was ...You attributed that quote to me, 9:51, but it was actually an excerpt from the Chicago Sun Times.<br /><br />I do agree science is a process and that absolute certainty is usually unachievable. But then, often today forensic science is portrayed as supplying "absolute certainty" as opposed to acknowledging "quantifiable levels of uncertainty," which is usually what one sees in cases where flawed forensics result in false convictions.<br /><br />And of course, your point is exactly why state habeas procedures need to accommodate changes in science; even when it's presented in court in all good faith, the science can change.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-7173022825364587972012-10-02T09:51:05.538-05:002012-10-02T09:51:05.538-05:00GFB: "Only proof that puts all doubt to rest ...GFB: "Only proof that puts all doubt to rest will suffice."<br /><br />This standard is unreachable by science when competently performed. Science when compentently performed is not about certainty, but about quantifiable levels of uncertainty. As long as the system is looking for certainty in scientific analysis, the system will be susceptible to exactly the problems that have occurred in the past.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com