Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science

Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science analyzes the gap between proven scientific methods and actual law enforcement practices in criminal investigations. The book examines why police departments continue using unreliable techniques despite evidence showing their flaws. Author David Harris draws on research studies, court cases, and interviews with law enforcement to document resistance to scientifically-validated reforms in areas like eyewitness identification, interrogation, and forensics. The text outlines specific instances where traditional police methods have led to wrongful convictions, while highlighting scientific alternatives that could prevent such errors. Harris examines the institutional and cultural factors within law enforcement that create barriers to adopting evidence-based practices. Through this lens, the book explores how cognitive bias, organizational inertia, and professional identity contribute to maintaining the status quo. The work raises fundamental questions about the relationship between science and criminal justice, challenging readers to consider how institutions balance tradition against empirical evidence. Through its systematic examination of this tension, the book contributes to broader discussions about reform and accountability in American law enforcement.

Readers value this book for exposing law enforcement's resistance to evidence-based practices. Multiple reviewers noted its clear explanations of cognitive biases and how they affect police work. Positives: - Detailed research citations - Practical reform suggestions - Balanced tone that avoids attacking law enforcement - Clear writing style for complex topics Criticisms: - Some sections repeat information - Limited discussion of successful reform examples - Focus primarily on U.S. cases - Could include more recent studies "Explains why police stick to outdated methods despite evidence showing better approaches," notes one Amazon reviewer. Another reader found it "persuasive without being preachy about needed changes." Ratings: Goodreads: 4.0/5 (56 ratings) Amazon: 4.3/5 (32 reviews) Google Books: 4/5 (14 reviews) A criminal justice professor called it "required reading for understanding institutional resistance to change in policing."

Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson A lawyer documents systemic flaws in the criminal justice system through cases of wrongful convictions and death row inmates.

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander The book examines how the criminal justice system functions as a system of racial control through policies and practices in law enforcement.

Blind Injustice by Mark Godsey A former prosecutor turned innocence advocate reveals the institutional and psychological causes of wrongful convictions.

Convicting the Innocent by Brandon L. Garrett Analysis of the first 250 DNA exoneration cases reveals patterns in how wrongful convictions occur through eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, and flawed forensics.

The Death of Innocents by Helen Prejean The book presents case studies of death row inmates to demonstrate how flaws in evidence collection and legal procedures lead to wrongful executions.

🔍 Author David Harris is a Distinguished Faculty Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and has testified before Congress about racial profiling in law enforcement 📚 The book reveals that many common police practices, such as traditional police lineups and unrecorded interrogations, have been proven scientifically unreliable yet continue to be widely used ⚖️ Studies cited in the book show that eyewitness misidentification played a role in more than 75% of convictions that were later overturned through DNA testing 🎓 The research presented demonstrates that simple changes, like conducting "double-blind" lineups where the administrator doesn't know who the suspect is, can significantly reduce false identifications 🚔 The book explores how cognitive bias affects law enforcement decisions, including "confirmation bias" where officers unconsciously look for evidence that confirms their initial suspicions while ignoring contrary evidence