Evolution of Forensic Science

Forensic science evolved as an attempt to introduce scientific methods into criminal justice. From the 18th century onward, advancements in chemistry, biology, and physics paved the way for forensic science (Gaensslen & Larsen, 2019). Likewise, the routine use of autopsy and forensic pathology helped improve the ability to understand the causes of death (Gaensslen & Larsen, 2019). Forensic science steadily evolved, in conjunctions with advancements in scientific instruments and the methods used for data collection and analysis. DNA evidence and analysis has made a huge impact on forensic science. Current concerns in forensic science include the need for increased reliability and validity of forensic science methods, as well as public perceptions of forensic science. Because perceptions of forensic science could have a direct impact on juror decisions, distinguishing real from junk science becomes one of the most important issues in criminal justice.
Scientific Methods in Forensic Science
Forensic scientific methods are varied and complex,“ranging from DNA analysis to chemical composition to pattern recognition,” (Bell, Sah, Albright, et al., 2018, p. 4541). Big data has also contributed tremendously to the collation and methods used in forensic analysis. Interestingly, the methods that had been used in forensic science until relatively recently had yet to be vetted by the scientific community. Instead, the standards of validity and reliability were established by members of the legal and criminal justice systems (Bell, Sah, Albright, et al., 2018). Ongoing investigations critiquing the methods used in forensic science led to the dismantling of the National Commission for Forensic Science (NCFS), but unfortunately no replacement system was established to setting standards for reliability and validity (Bell, Sah, Albright, et al., 2018). Kaplan & Puracal (2018) advocate for a “collaborative approach” to increase validity and reliability (p. 1).
Peer Review Process
Peer review has long been considered a gold standard of establishing scientific credibility, authenticity, and legitimacy. Yet as Ballantyne, Edmond & Found (2017) found, after an assessment of peer review processes in forensic science, “its actual value in most forensic science settings has yet to be determined,” (p. 66). Peer review processes are only as valid and reliable as their structure and design; there are different types of peer review including editorial peer review, peer review by the scientific community, technical and administrative review, and verification (Ballantyne, Edmond & Found, 2017). Which type of peer review process that is used matters, and it affects the value of expert witness testimony, too.
Common Perceptions of Forensic Science
The public’s perception of forensic science depends on multiple factors, including media literacy, science literacy, and also the impact of several generations’ worth of both fiction and true crime stories. Media literacy refers to the public’s ability to discern the credibility of a news source or any other source of information, whether print or digital. Science literacy refers to the public’s understanding of the scientific method, and the ability for a person to think critically about the validity and reliability of scientific studies. This includes an understanding of the peer review process, and how to tell the difference between an actual scientific journal and one that simply uses technical jargon but which only masquerades as science.
One of the hugest influences on the common perception of forensic science comes from the worlds of fiction and non-fiction. Crimes have always been a part of the human experience, resulting in countless accounts of both true and fictionalized methods used to solve those crimes. From the time of the Enlightenment onward, scientific methods have become incorporated into the processes of gathering data and assessing evidence in order to solve crimes and apprehend the correct perpetrator to bring about justice. Both fiction and non-fiction accounts of forensic science have impacted public perceptions and opinions of the validity and reliability of forensic evidence. The romance of crime and crime solving has resulted in a proliferation of true and fiction crime television and film, including the CSI series, resulting in what is known as the “CSI effect.”
CSI Effect
Fictionalized accounts of crime scene investigation could result in an improvement in public understanding of how forensic science works and what it entails, or it might cause the public to hold unrealistic expectations of how forensic science works. According to Gaensslen, & Larsen (2019), fictionalized shows like CSI shows are “grossly unrealistic, sometimes even complete fantasy,” resulting in jurors making uninformed choices that could lead to false acquittals or false guilty verdicts (p. 3). However, Shelton (2008) reports the results of surveys of jurors that do not demonstrate as serious a “CSI Effect” as has been predicted. There is no doubt that some members of the criminal justice system as well as jurors might be unduly influenced by fiction shows, but ultimately it is media literacy and science literacy that need to be improved in order to boost the efficacy of forensic science.
Junk Science
As shocking as it may seem, a large portion of forensic science methods that have been used for data collection and analysis have since been regarded as junk science or pseudoscience. Some culprits include “DNA analysis, bite marks, latent fingerprints, firearms identification, and footwear analysis,” (Kaplan & Puracal, 2018, p. 1). The seemingly scientific methods used in forensic data analysis have duped members of the non-scientific professional communities. These communities may consist of well-meaning individuals dedicated to criminal justice proceedings, but lack the competencies required to effectively evaluate criteria for establishing instrument and method reliability and validity. The use of junk science in forensics can, and most likely has, led to miscarriages of justice. Even the peer-reviewed process has proven flawed given the lack of substantial definitions for what constitutes a professional peer capable of evaluating the reliability and validity of forensic data (Ballantyne, Edmond & Found, 2017). The CSI effect might effect the ways criminal justice professionals who are not members of the scientific community perceive the reliability and validity of forensic science methods, but the proliferation of junk science is more likely due to global factors related to scientific literacy (Shelton, 2008).
Conclusions
The future of forensic science depends on the establishment of stricter standards and a commitment to scientific literacy within the criminal justice community. Whether or not the CSI effect is real, forensic science needs to clean up its own act by interjecting the means by which to increase media and scientific literacy. The use of forensic science should be strictly constrained by a commitment to justice.
References
Ballantyne, K. N., Edmond, G., & Found, B. (2017). Peer review in forensic science. Forensic Science International, 277, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.05.020
Bell, S., Sah, S., Albright, T. D., Gates, S. J., Jr, Denton, M. B., & Casadevall, A. (2018). A call for more science in forensic science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America, 115(18), 4541–4544. https://doi.org//10.1073/pnas.1712161115
Gaensslen, R. E., & Larsen, K. (2019). Introductory forensic science (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://content.ashford.edu/
Kaplan , A. B., & Puracal, J. C. (2018). It’s not a match: Why the law can’t let go of junk science. Albany Law Review, 81(3), 895–939. Retrieved from http://www.albanylawreview.org/Pages/home.aspx
National Research Council 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12589.
Redmayne, M., Roberts, P., Aitken, C., & Jackson, G. (2011). Forensic science evidence in question. Criminal Law Review 5, 347–356 Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Graham_Jackson6/publication/265654577_Forensic_Science_Evidence_in_Question/links/55006b8d0cf2aee14b548b62/Forensic-Science-Evidence-in-Question.pdf
Shelton, D. E. (2008, March). The ‘CSI effect:’ Does it really exist?. NIJ Journal, 259. Retrieved from https://www.nij.gov/journals/259/pages/csi-effect.aspx#author