[dylan604]

Well, if you don't think it should be under control of police or prosecution, who do you suggest needs to do it? The defense? A third party private contractor like Theranos? Who's going to be the ones validating whoever is decided can do the testing?

[Zigurd]

It's a kind of factoring-out from police, who are often systemically racist and corrupt. factoring-out responses to mental health crises, reducing the amount of armed response, etc. reduces the danger from police violence. Factoring out evidence handling to a separate agency that is just as motivated to prove innocence as guilt would improve the use of forensics, and reduce bad plea deals and prosecutions.

[dylan604]

what other agency staffed by whom?

[jihiggins]

everything you listed is still better than giving it to the cops. "these random examples sound bad" isn't really a good argument for doing nothing.

[dylan604]

random examples are necessary because we were walked to the edge of the cliff with no actual solution provided, so hyperbole felt like an appropriate response to encourage moving the train further down the tracks.

it's not a bad idea, but it's obviously ripe for just an additional layer of bureaucratic waste. clearly, there is a lack of trust that the police could handle evidence properly. so the natural follow up is who is trust worthy? how would it work? cops are called to the scene, but are then only there to "secure it" until some 3rd party comes along to collect evidence? what's the purpose of a detective at that point? we're not just shifting that role from a police agency to some 3rd party. are we going to re-establish the Pinkertons? if the detectives are no longer a role in the police, then more than likely those that would be attracted to that role would just join the 3rd party instead. so you haven't solved anything other than these people are no longer part of the police but are still involved.

[jihiggins]

it feels like there are two main categories of reaction to big societal issues: one starts with "this is unacceptable, so we will find an alternative," the other says "everything else sounds iffy so we shouldn't even try"

our current system is so broken and evil that i wonder if just getting rid of it entirely wouldn't actually be better and more ethical. even with the problem of releasing however many violent offenders back in the wild. "it might be even more beaurocratic" isn't really going to convince me of anything.

i dont know what the best alternative solution is, im a software engineer. i just know that the current solution is depraved and should be torn down and replaced.