Faulty Forensic Science - Essay Example

Faulty Forensic Science The rise of the CSI TV shows has placed undue expectations and stress upon the crime labs across the country. People expect these forensic scientists to be able to solve a crime in a similar manner as their television counterparts, which are not grounded in reality. It is because of the so called “CSI Effect” that crime scene investigators are keenly watched by all sides during a criminal case. In an effort to gain a conviction, sometimes the crime lab ends up conducting faulty forensic science investigations. This paper will serve to present the facts as to why there is a need for a centralized governing forensic science body to oversee the crime labs, and also look into the possibility that maybe, just maybe, forensic science is not always at fault when it comes to the acquittal or conviction of a criminal. Acknowledging the fact that the forensic field of criminal investigation is not fool-proof, the United States Department of Justice has decided that the time has come to establish a forensic commission that will set the standards and oversee the functions of crime labs nationwide. This commission is expected to set the standards that will be used to determine the forensic guilt of a criminally charged person. through the creation of a “a professional code for forensic scientists, set certification requirements and advise the Attorney General... In addition, the National Institute of Standards and Technology will double-check existing forensic science standards and develop new ways of making forensic measurements.” (Diep, “New Commission to Set Standards for Troubled Forensic Sciences”). Currently, there are no uniform rules existing to guide the forensic labs in the discharge of their jobs. The commission is expected to standardize their function and offer a sense of uniformity in their investigation and experimentation procedures. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences reported that “much of the “science” used in crime labs lacks any form of peer review or validation – fundamental requirements for sound science. Such questionable forensic methods include long-established and accepted techniques such as fingerprint comparison, hair and fiber analysis, and bullet matching” (Clarke, “Crime Labs in Crisis: Shoddy Forensics Used to Secure Convictions”). The creation of this commission will then make the forensic labs answerable to the commission and prevent the failure of the justice system by sending an innocent person to prison or releasing a guilty person back into the general population of society. Over the decades, CSI investigation has taken center stage in some of the most controversial murder cases of the 20th and early 21st century. Of the 20th century cases, the most controversial failure of forensics was clearly seen in the O.J. Simpson case. Everything that could go wrong, went wrong during the evidence collection starting with uncollected evidence, mishandled evidence, sloppy maneuvering of the crime scene. All of which combined to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Thus setting O,J. Simpson free on what is publicly believed to be a technicality. The most talked about child disappearance/ possible murder case of the 21st century, the Caylee Anthony case also shows further proof as to how shoddy forensics or the lack of it tends to impact a case. According to reports “In the Anthony case, its unknown if flawed forensic evidence led to a false accusation or made it impossible to convict a guilty person of a horrible crime” (Shahani, “Casey Anthony Trial Shows Limits of Forensic Science in Proving How a Child Died”). In this case, forensic science failed to determine the cause of Caylees death. Their whole case was based solely upon prosecution assumptions resulting from the singular piece of decomposing hair that was gathered at the assumed crime scene, the trunk of Casey Anthonys 1978 Pontiac Sunfire. In this instance, forensic science once again got an accused person off the hook in a murder rap, based upon a technicality. Due to the success and failure of forensic science in criminal trials. The whole justice system has been placed under incredible pressure to prove the guilt of innocence of a person beyond a reasonable doubt. Miscarriages in justice occur because of a contaminated crime scene, missed evidence, undocumented evidence, and the like. It is believed that up to 45 % of wrongful convictions stem from faulty forensics (Diep, “New Commission to Set Standards for Troubled Forensic Science”). Admittedly, crime lab workers are not the scientists that they are envisioned to be due to their unrealistic portrayal of these characters on television. Neither are they normally highly educated as most states only require a high school diploma for crime lab workers. Herein lies the dilemma that affects the field of forensic science as a whole. This is also the reason why forensic science has changed the world of crime investigation like never before. According to Col. Stevens (“The Changing Role of Forensic Science”), forensic science was previously used to analyze evidence towards the end of a criminal investigation. Somewhere between the commission of the crime, investigation, arrest of a suspect, but definitely before the prosecution. The role of a CSI was merely as a support to the investigators who need to develop leads of identify possible suspects. These days however, the role of forensics moves simultaneously with the criminal investigation by the police. A change in the role and pace of criminal investigation by forensic science that was made possible by advances in forensic technology relating to the human DNA and increased awareness about the benefits of forensic science in criminal investigations. Col. Stevens further explains that “The power of DNA and use of the DNA database or Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) have resulted in an effective crime fighting tool for the law enforcement. Matching known offender DNA profiles to unknown DNA crime scene profiles or matching unknown DNA crime scene profiles to other unknown DNA crime scene profiles provides a method to identify a suspect and/or provide additional investigative information which may result in solving cases preciously classified as "cold cases." These powerful tools also have resulted in increasing number of cases presented to the forensic science laboratory system for analysis” (“The Changing Role of Forensic Science”). Now evidence analysis can be done more thoroughly and accurately using even the smallest and degraded samples. Forensic science results on this type of molecular level has definitely impacted the way cases are resolved by the jury and the courts. Forensic labs have increased in number across the states either as a wholly police department owned lab or a private lab working with the local police. This increase in crime labs proves the increased demands being placed upon forensic science. However, its popularity as an investigation tool also slows down the justice system. A backed up forensic lab results in delays and case backlogs which could result in the mismanagement of evidence by the laboratory. The role of forensics in a criminal investigation cannot be limited to only one field of the forensics arena. All of the related fields combine in order to create an accurate after the fact portrayal of a crime scene and/or enaction of a crime. Therefore, it would be unfair to lay the blame for failed forensic results on just one branch of the system. All the systems are equally at fault because the success or failure of the crime lab all depends upon how evidence is preserved at the crime scene, the least possibility of contamination during evidence collection, and the proper handling and processing of the evidence at the crime lab. All of these factors combine to create the solid evidence for a conviction or the planting of reasonable doubt in the minds of the judge and jury. In our increasingly violent world, the role of forensic science in proving the guilt or innocence of a person will only continue to increase. That is why there is a need for a forensic science governing body. The world of forensic investigation at the moment is like the wild west of old. Anything goes and each lab can set its own criteria relating to the accuracy of their test results. Without the possibility of uniformed guidelines in evidence collection and testing, it will be hard to say that forensic evidence can stand on its own merit in court. In the future, forensic science will be the most important tool of crime investigation. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that a solid foundation for the unquestionable validity of their test results be established this early on. Sources Clarke, M. (2014). Crime labs in crisis: Shoddy forensic labs used to secure convictions. prisonlegalnews.org. prisonlegalnews.org. Retrieved from https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticle.aspx? articleid=22698&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 Diep, F. (2013). New commission to set standards for troubled forensic sciences. popsi.com. popsi.com. Retrieved from http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/new-commission-set-standards- troubled-forensic-sciences N.A. (n.d.). Forensics at the O.J. Simpson trial. crimemuseum.org. crimemuseum.org. Retrieved from http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/forensic-investigation- of-the-oj-simpson-trial Shahani, A. (2011). Casey Anthony trial shows the limits of forensic science in proving how a child died. Pro Publica. propublica.org. Retrieved from http://www.propublica.org/article/casey-anthony-trial-shows-the-limits-of-forensic- science-in-proving-how-a-c Stevens, K. Col. (n.d.). The Changing role of forensic science. grundyco.org. grundyco.org. Retrieved from http://www.grundyco.org/departments/coroner/item/the-changing-role-of-forensic- science Read More