{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012089810017271158, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.795, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ten Years After the National Academy of Sciences’ Landmark Report on Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward – Where are We?

We are still struggling with the inability of courts to assess the efficacy of forensic evidence. When a forensic expert testifies about a method that has not been found to be valid and reliable, the expert does not know what he does not know and cannot explain the limits of the evidence. This is unacceptable. Judges and juries must understand the levels of uncertainty that are associated with forensic evidence so that they can determine whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
 
We still need a national, independent agency to oversee forensic research and practices. This was the most important recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. We also need more top scientists engaged in serious research to determine the validity and reliability of forensic methods. And we need these individuals to appear in court to explain the limits of the evidence.