IN an age of technology, there is bound to be increasing interest in testing and laboratory methods, so-called "scientific evidence." These techniques promise a number of advantages, especially for criminal investigations and trials, not the least of which is the elimination of human bias. A finger print identifies more objectively than an eye witness. Similarly, percentage of alcohol in the blood as an indicator of whether a man is "under the influence" is less susceptible to distortion than the judgment of a policeman observing behavior in the station house. Techniques such as these can certainly be useful. Simply because a method claims to be "scientific," however, it should not be accepted uncritically.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jerome H. Skolnick (1961) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: