Forensic Science Blog

Forensic Science Under Fire

Recently, Radley Balko and Roger Koppl wrote a column on the continuing problems endemic in forensic science. Within its text, it claims that bad science is rampant in forensic science disciplines with calls for vast reform. These are the specific charges that Roger Koppl levies against forensic science:

Monopoly - Forensic labs have exclusive rights over evidence evidence in most circumstances.

Dependence bias - Forensic labs are dependent on law enforcement for funding… therefore forensic science is biased (pro-prosecution)

Insufficient quality control - Forensic labs are not required to be accredited by an independent accrediting agency.

No division of labor between analysis and interpretation - The individual(s) responsible for analyzing the data is the same that interprets the results.

Lack of forensic “counsel” - The poor cannot obtain forensic services, but have the right to an attorney. Many competent attorneys also cannot counter the pro-prosecution forensic results from a state/federal investigation

Lack of competition - State holds a monopoly on forensic science analyses, thus little competition exists.

While this is certainly not the first time people have been speaking out regarding some problematic aspects of forensic science, the efforts for reform are unmistakably becoming more organized. Most of points brought up in this column and in the report outlining these problems and potential resolutions are in effect misplacing blame and exerting it on the entire disciplines (yes, plural) of forensic science.

For starters, forensic science is not one unit, treating it as such only serves to blind people to the strong suits of specific analyses (gold standards, so to speak) and superb experts in their respective fields and lump all of the problematic methods and rogue “scientists” that have cropped up over the years.

But let’s not flush the baby with the bath water. Claiming that the vast majority of wrongful convictions are due to forensic error without any evidience surely does not sit well with any forensic scientist I know. I agree in that what we can do to help juries decide on their own is grant an independent forensic counsel to judges and juries to help interpret forensic results for those that essentially have defendants’ liberty in their hands to make intelligent decisions.