This talk describes the results of a study that is designed to measure the values associated with different outcomes in forensic comparisons. We compare the decisions by examiners in casework-like comparisons against what they and the general public say they should do. The exact tradeoff between the outcomes depends on several factors which are modeled in the experiment using data from the literature. We then use this tradeoff in a visualization that demonstrates the values that different individuals apply to the various outcomes of forensics decisions. The results suggest that members of the general public are more likely to make an identification decision, which will put more criminals and potentially more innocent individuals in jail. I discuss various possible reasons for differences between examiners and the public, including the personal consequences of an erroneous identification to the examiner.