Forensic Science Under Fire, Continued
The National Academy of Sciences recently released a report (see this NPR story) citing some incendiary and serious concerns about the state of “forensic science” in the United States.
In recent e-mail communication, this comment was made by one of our faculty:
“Much of what is said in the NPR report reflects what the National Research Council and many other institutions criticize of the current state of Forensic Sciences in the US and around the world. Forensic Science evolved as a side kick from various disciplines including Medicine, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology among others. It is therefore not surprising that the unique applications of Forensic Sciences have not been standardized yet but rather been studied from the point of interest and with a special focus of its parent disciplines. It is time for the child to get on its own feet and evolve into its own discipline, establish its own standards and recognition. Programs such as ours at the University of Florida provide, support, and facilitate the basis for this coming-of-age development and maturation.”
I still criticize that too much misinformation is abound regarding the nuances of the study of the various forensic sciences. The “CSI effect,” by and large, has not accumulated enough empirical support to suggest that the problem exists among jurors. To the counterpoint, a large-scale study by Judge Donald Shelton (whose respondants were actual jurors) suggests the issue can be described a “tech effect” - a generalized expectancy of high tech evidenciary practices theorethically due to living in a high-tech and advanced world.
While academia, practitioners, and our students are all mindful of this, it helps to keep in mind that expressing the limitations of any empirical findings are paramount to evaluating research (or evidentiary findings). The same holds in the courtroom.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:11 am
While there are aspects of forensic science that possibly do need moderating, I am not entirely convinced that standardisation, centralisation and certification are solutions that will prevent miscarriage of justice.
In other words, I don’t think the finger is pointing in the right direction, nor does it seem that account has been given for the huge number of successful (and justified) convictions that have been the result of good forensic science. Even less account is given (it seems) to the education standard set by Universities producing forensic scientists. Should there really be a need to certify someone who has spent 6 to 9 years working their way to completed degree, masters and PhD?
The CSI effect has more than one aspect to it. I applaud the series based on the raising of public awareness that it has precipitated, regardless of whether the details in each serial are completely accurate. Members of the public (from whom we draw our jurors!) who have watched CSI, now understand that science plays a role in conviction - it isn’t simply guesswork on the part of the police, neither is it vindictive selection of suspects, but rather it is very much evidence led. I hope for the sake of forensic sciences in general that they are not being measured by a CSI yardstick!
The real problem seems to me to be not so much the forensic science that is provided to support conviction, as the jury interpretation thereof. If we rely on random selection of jurors as is currently the case, we run the risk of a panel of people with poor education attempting to understand science that has taken forensic scientist years to learn.
To point fingers only at the forensic sciences makes a mockery of the standards set by University establishments that teach the component subjects that make up degrees (in forensic science and related subjects which then result in expert witnesses).
High-tech methodology is not the problem. Interpretation of results is. While investigation teams may interpret results to suit a convictions (we all hope not), by all accounts this should unravel when the defence team consults an expert about the findings.
So, if we are looking to sort out miscarriages of justice, perhaps what is needed is better resources for both defence and jurors. It seems odd to me that prosecutors and defenders do not have equal access to resources. Why is it that defence is sometimes conducted on a shoe-string budget? On an equal budget they may afford a scientist who might also agree that the forensic evidence is justified (heaven forbid that it results in hired guns). So long as forensic scientists (for prosecution or defence) remain impartial, the evidence will speak for itself and as forensic scientist, we all have a duty to remain impartial - it is not our job to convict; it is our job to provide evidence based results.
A method of educating the jurors is surely also a need. Since these are drawn randomly from the population, we are left with a need for broad scale education - how many school leavers really know the laws of the state in which they live? Most don’t, they are left to find that out by experience. Teaching law at school level strikes me as a likely starting point. Improving the content of shows such as CSI is another. There must be many other avenues with which to accomplish this.
… but let’s not throw the baby (forensic science) out with the bath-water! Let’s not allow forensic science to fall as the scapegoat for the failings of a communal law which draws the selection committee (jurors) from a population of people having a broad education background ranging from illiterate to genius.
If forensic science is going to fall under scrutiny, perhaps so should the law courts, law firms and the whole establishment that allows cases to sit for years between arrest and trial, a system that seems flawed by unequal resourcing between prosecution and defence, and a system that hands scientific evidence to untrained personnel to decide if it’s valid or not.
Andrew Whittington
Consultant Entomologist
March 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I bet hollywood wouldn’t have two seconds to stomach this: http://tinyurl.com/bhpkoy
Maybe we should just keep forensics to old-school aesthetics? What do you think?
May 5th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Hello.. This is Scott from India… I was looking for the same information and thanks, your post was really helpful!!
May 12th, 2009 at 6:08 am
Thanks for sharing.. Our country lacks knowledge about forensics.. This blog is really helpful for us who doesn’t have enough idea about forensics.. Thanks so much..
June 13th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Judge Donald Shelton’s study does have some credence if it can be proven to have enough statistical significance.