20,000 Convicted Drug Offenders' Cases Will Get Thrown Out Thanks To This Rogue Chemist

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Apr 3, 2017.

  1. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    I wonder what her motivation was? big time vigilante
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-20000-drug-cases_us_58dec110e4b0ba359594f495

     
  2. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #2
    I've seen people do all sorts of insane, irrational ****.

    Nothing surprises me anymore.
     
  3. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    I'd be interested to know the details of this one. One defendant says "those weren't drugs"? Easy to ignore. Ten say it? Meh. But 100? 500? It took that long for someone to say hmm?
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    she needs to serve the rest of her life in jail , even that will not compensate for all the lives she ruined. **** her & the horse she rode on.
     
  5. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #5
    I'd guess that it was drugs in 99.99% of the cases, but they have been handled in such a way that they can't be used of evidence (as it's clearly the case here) you'd end up with a case having to be dismissed.
     
  6. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #6
    She's already out on parole.
     
  7. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    I'll have to read up on this. Sounds like she was a fraud. I'm trying to find out what she fabricated. Lying about your education is one thing, fabricating evidence is another.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    that is bovine fecal matter, she should be serving the sentences of those she help to wrongfully convict.
     
  9. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #9
    Here is an initial story on her.

    All Globe stories
     
  10. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  11. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #11
    Pretty sure this deserves at least the maximum for a drug related offense plus a few years because she was in a position of power.
     
  12. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #12
    This story has circulated for like 5 years now. Annie Dookan served like 2-3 years in prison and is now out. Completely unacceptable IMO. She has destroyed lives, let guilty people go, and cost the state tons of money.

    Not quite. She wouldn't even test samples and draw conclusions. She would intentionally taint negative samples to make them positive or overstate the amount of something positive. Or she would mark positive samples negative. This is well beyond negligent chain of custody mistakes. This was intentional, pathological, tampering of evidence. There is no excusing this. She deserves much more jail time than a couple years.
     
  13. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #13
    This story has been ongoing for a while in the Boston area. I agree what she did was reprehensible, but even more than her awful actions I'm always troubled by the vengeance-seeking public, some of which I am seeing in this thread.

    I think she should pay for what she did, but throwing her in jail? Why? What possible logic is there to locking her up other than some primal drive to see someone hurt?

    She should certainly not be allowed anywhere near another criminal investigation of any kind. She should be permanently barred from offering expert testimony in a court case. But why should society pay even more money on clothing, feeding, and sheltering her, on top of the cost of the harm she caused? She's not a danger to anyone, she's not violent. Being unethical is not a valid reason to remove someone from society.

    Here is a more appropriate punishment, I think, which would be designed to actually address the harm she did rather than just hurt her.

    She should be allowed to get a low-level mundane job in private industry as a chemist lab technician - something with low responsibility and high oversight - of which there are plenty of such jobs around here as we are basically the hub of biochem research. The state can help with this. I'd rather she was productive and self-sufficient, rather than taxpayers having to pay for her care.

    Then garnish her wages until the full cost of the harm she has inflicted on the criminal justice system is repaid, then continue garnishing her wages until her victims have been compensated for their list time and lost earnings. Garnishment should be high, she should be left with just enough to afford to live a basic lifestyle but with dignity.

    In the meantime, force her to work 15hrs/month in community service helping recently released prisoners readjust to living in society, for 15 years. Hopefully that will teach her some perspective on who she hurt.

    Finally, the usual parole (no travel, regular check-ins, etc) for 15 years.

    I know it's more complicated, and there isn't the bloodthirst satisfaction of throwing someone in a dark prison cell and throwing away the key. But this is a much better punishment.
     
  14. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #14
    You've opened up a whole door of the philosophy a jailing people. Your solution sounds a lot like forced labor. What if this woman chooses she does not want to work. Who on earth would want to hire this woman when clearly she is not mentally stable. No one wants to deal with that type of liability. And what is "low level lab work". If you're working in a lab you're looking for some sort of truth. Any falsified or tampered information is a direct hinderance to that end.

    I don't think this woman needs to be "hurt" for her actions, but she does deserve adequate punishment. People literally went to jail for crimes they did not commit. That is not a victimless crime. I don't think someone should be allowed freedom who is directly responsible for the wrongful imprisonment of others and let guilty people walk free. This is not a victimless crime. People's freedom has been wrongly taken away and reputations ruined. I don't think garnishing the the wages of a low level lab tech will ever come close to repaying victims and the state for the damage she has done. We're talking about thousands of cases now called into question.

    It's not a matter of bloodthirst in my mind, it's a matter of the punishment fitting the crime. If you intentionally tamper with labs that results in imprisonment or innocent people, I think imprisonment is a fair punishment.
     
  15. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #15
    This case sounds very family. Has it been discussed here before?
     
  16. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #16
    It's possible. It's been ongoing for years now.
     
  17. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #17
    Wasn't this an episode of Bones? What an idiot...
     
  18. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
  19. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #19
    Her actions caused innocent people to go to jail. As @A.Goldberg said, this isn't a victimless crime. The 2-3 years she spent in jail wasn't nearly enough.
     
  20. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #20
    I suppose the title of this thread is misleading. While many guilty people may have their cases overturned, it doesn't describe the more concerning issues of innocent people being wrongly convicted. I feel false positive is way worse than a false negative.

    That said, it's important to consider the ramifications of drug testing beyond convictions and jail time- take for instance cases where child custody depend on drug tests. A false positive and false negative both have rather significant consequences for the children of the subjects in question.

    If you got your children taken away from you because of a bogus lab report that's something that really cannot be compensated for. At the same time, if a parent was using drugs and neglecting their children, and the drug use was undetected, the welfare of the children are at stake.
     
  21. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #21
    In no way do I want to diminish the nature of her crime. However, the philosophy of punishment is not so complicated. In general, I think the US is a bit too quick to jail. I also dispute that jailing her is a fitting punishment. It's not a fitting punishment at all.

    The theories of punishment are, in from a legal doctrine standpoint, retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence. The summary of each theory is (yes this is a simplification, but good enough for this forum's discussion, though there is nuance of course):

    Retribution. This is about paying for the past. People "deserve" to be punished for bad deeds. We should hate criminals because they disrupt social order. An eye for an eye. It's also the clean slate theory in that you do the time and you come out clean.

    Incapacitation. This is about prison or death. This is about restraining dangerous people by physically preventing them from being part of society.

    Rehabilitation. This is about treatment. People commit crimes because they are mentally ill and need to be treated or somehow fixed.

    General deterrence. This is forward looking. If we punish people for certain offenses, other people won't commit them.

    Specific deterrence. This is forward looking. If someone has committed a crime, then we punish them to deter them from committing it again. If they do it again, then we punish them more.
    Under what theory is jailing this woman appropriate?

    Retribution? Jail is but one tool in a very large tool box, and in terms of giving her what she deserves it's no more appropriate than several other options. Incapacitate? Totally inappropriate because she is not dangerous. Rehabilitation? Jail does the opposite, if anything it would turn her into a worse criminal when she gets out. General or specific deterrence? Any punishment would accomplish this, including non-jail ones.

    Also, to address you comments in the first paragraph: Yes, it's forced labor, but so is jail. All punishments, in some sense, are a loss of freedom. Being locked in a cage isn't the only way to make someone less free. Wage garnishment by the way is a very commonly used punishment - I didn't just make it up. Even if she is never able to pay the extremely high costs, it's still more appropriate in my opinion.

    While she is certainly horribly unethical, she still has valuable skills. It would be a waste to society to just throw her in jail. You seem skeptical that there are jobs for her, but I know for a fact there are. They are few, but they exist. There is always a demand for her skills in this area. Back in my engineering days I worked for a medical device research company (coincedentally, related to DNA analysis for forensics). One of the lab techs was an ex-felon, whose crime was part fraud and part drug-related. He did basic stuff, following specific written instructions, pipetteing and setting up experiments that would later be run by the research scientists. He did no analysis, no results-based work. He was always around scientists and never alone, his work was checked, but he saved other people time. The work couldn't be done by a robot because due to the research nature of it, each preparation was slightly different than the last. The guy loved the work as it allowed him to have pride and dignity, but it was no secret that the guy should be closely watched. Frankly, I would have hated his job as it was super monotonous with absolutely no room for creative thinking. Later in my career, I saw similar sort of roles in a battery facility, in several machine shops, and in a fuel cell lab.

    I guess my main point is this: She harmed society, but what good is it to society to put her away? We have a choice, we can pay $60k/yr or so to lock her up for a long time, or we can punish her my severely restricting her freedom while at the same time getting something back from her, even if it's a measly $10k/yr. I literally see no reason to opt for the former.
     

Share This Page