[dogma1138]

Most forensic and evidentiary processes are pseudo-science at best this includes fingerprints which are still mostly matched by humans against smudges and not through some nifty CSI super computers since they well don't give as many positive results under any circumstances as law enforcement would like.

Other stuff like lie detectors which are in quite often use in the US are complete nonsense.

Witnesses are inherently unreliable, rarely they produce even remotely accurate testimonies, and in most cases tell the cops what they want to hear rather than what has actually happened.

Expert witnesses including law enforcement agents constantly give flawed testimonies and are inherently biased based on the nature of the case and the apparent guilt of the perpetrator. Paid expert witnesses are even worse because they have a clear incentive to give testimony that will strengthen the case for the party which paid for their services, both state and federal level prosecutors have their pet experts that will tell the jury just what they want them to hear, same goes for many large criminal law firms.

So far only 2 types of evidence seem to increase conviction rates while drastically decrease wrongful convictions and these are audio/video recordings and DNA.

While I understand the fact that people do not like to be watched, and a smarter man that me once said that those who are willing to give up liberty for security are not worthy of either. In our current reality however increased privacy might actually result in loss of liberty, especially if you are a member of an at-risk group as far as unlawful convictions go.