Duke lacrosse and wrongful conviction

The smug losers in the MSM now chide the supporters of of the exonerated lax players with tales of innocent men who went to prison. Like ABC's moronic Terry Moran, they want to know why we don't discuss those cases.

A better question is why do they only bring up those other cases now that their auto-de-fe was interrupted. They, after all, get paid to cover courts and trials. They are pundits who can write about anything they want. Why didn't they write about the men who were wrongly convicted instead of trying to railroad three innocent college students?

Radley Balko is not of their ilk. He has credibility on this issue. When he calls on the anti-Nifong camp to look at other cases, he deserves a hearing. He is absolutely correct to point out that the actions of Nifong are not unique to Durham.

We need a debate on how we can improve the system. I offered a couple of ideas here. We also need to address the use of "forensic science" by police and prosecutors.

1. Fraud is all too common. No surprise since the people who usually fight fraud are the beneficiaries of this crime.

2. When prosecutors base their case on forensic experts, the defense has to be given the resources to confront them.

3. I'd like to see a blue ribbon panel of scientists examine "forensic science" and how it is used. I'd like to see them address the conceptual issues: what is real science and what is junk science, what should be the qualifications for scientific experts.

I'd also like to see them address procedures. A real scientist can do sloppy research which invalidates his findings. How, then, should a crime lab operate to ensure that their findings are reliable and valid?

By all means, though, let the discussion begin.