Forensic Science and Government

¶ … Forensic Sciences in the USA and the United Kingdom

Over the last two decades, the forensic science has assisted in producing valuable evidence that has contributed to a successful conviction and prosecution of criminals and exoneration of innocent citizens. Typically, an advanced in forensic science and DNA technology have been a great assistance for law enforcement agency for an identification and prosecution of criminals. In the United States and the UK, many cases that have been formally unsolved have now been solved based on the great assistance of the forensic science investigators. (National Research Council, 2009). Forensics or forensic science is a field of investigation drawing different scientific disciplines in law, criminal and civil services. This practice requires an application of scientific knowledge, quantitative, qualitative and empirical skills to collect and analyze data that will assist in presenting evidence in a tribunal or court of law. However, the method the evidence is collected and analyzed requires using an advanced in technology and scientific knowledge to test and testifying the results. (Mallett, & Evison, 2013). While the United Kingdom and the United States use the same technology and scientific evidence to carry out the forensic investigation, nevertheless, there are still some differences between the UK and the United States forensic science.

The objective of this study is to carry out a comparison of forensic sciences in the USA and the United Kingdom

Comparison of Forensic sciences in the USA and the United Kingdom

The application of the forensic science in the United States consists of a diverse network of local, state, federal law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, private forensic laboratories, law enforcement identification units and crime laboratories, quality system providers and defense attorneys. While the application of the forensic science is more decentralized in the United States, however, the UK forensic DNA systems is more centralized. Goulka, et al. (2010) argue that the UK criminal justice has capitalized on the DNA forensic evidence than the U.S. forensic criminal systems. It is claimed that the UK forensic DNA analysis is less expensive and deliver results quickly than the U.S. DNA systems. Thus, the United States DNA forensic analysis is more relatively more expensive, rigid, and plagued with the bureaucratic system. However, the UK forensic DNA system is more cost-effective and assists in solving a large number of serious crimes.

Goulka, et al. (2010) compares forensic systems of the United States and the UK by stating that the UK has a single DNA database managed by the UK Home office, which is a semi-independent arm of government. On the other hand, the U.S. government authorizes the DNA database systems from the DNA Identification Act, which established the CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), and managed by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). A major difference between the UK and USA forensic science is that privatize and private forensic labs deliver forensic services to police forces in the UK to solve the case problems. Typically, the NFFA (National Forensic Framework Agreement) plays a major role in the forensic services, and assists in providing services to police forces in England. Key private organizations that deliver forensic services in the UK include LGC Forensics, Forensic Science Service, Key Forensic Services, and Orchid Cellmark. Smaller private forensic labs also assist in delivering the forensic services to police forces in the UK.

Contrarily, the private forensic labs play limited roles in the United States because the public labs predominantly deliver forensic services. However, a number forensic firms are allowed to handle the specialized DNA analyses, exigent requests, and excess demand. Moreover, private forensic laboratories are also allowed to conduct the DNA typing for sample categories, which are uploaded and managed by CODIS since the CODIS remains an exclusive purview of the FBI and public-sector laboratories.

Another difference between the UK and USA forensic service is the area of funding. In the UK, the central government is responsible for the funding of forensic science expansion, However, police forces pay for the forensic services from their budgets. On the other hand, the federal government is responsible for the funding of the forensic services in the United States. For example, the federal government provides the grants annually to more than 200 public laboratories and outsourcing works to other private or public labs across the country. Butler, (2015) argue that the U.S. NIJ (National Institute of Justice) is responsible for the funding of the forensic services. For example, the NIJ has awarded research grants totaled $125 million for the advanced of the forensic science annually. Between 2009 and 2014, the NIJ had issued 23 funding solicitations resulted in funding 269 research projects. By April 2015, the NIJ has produced 255 publications and 77 final technical reports. With reference to the forensic research, the NIJ has approved $48 million for over 100 projects for topics that include human DNA quantitation, alternative genetic markers, non-human DNA, mitochondrial DNA, mitochondrial DNA and sperm separation and detection. While the funding for the advancement of forensic science is high in the United States, funding is limited for the forensic scientific research in the United Kingdom. House of Common (2013) reveals that forensic researchers face challenges in obtaining funding from the UK government. In the last few years, the police forces have reduced the expenditures on the forensic science because of a decline in their annual budget.

A forensic science regulation is another area where there is a perceive difference between forensic science practice in the United States and the UK. In England, the forensic science regulator plays a critical role in the quality assurance of the UK forensic science. For example, the UKAS (UK Accreditation Service) is a national accreditation body recognized by the government to assess the forensic practice against the international standards. Moreover, the UKAS delivers the accreditations and certifications to maintain the quality standards in the UK forensic practice. (House of Common, 2013). The FSAC (Forensic Science Advisory Council) also plays a critical role in regulating the forensic science in the UK. The composition of the FSAC include scientists, lawyers, police, and judges. However, the forensic science regulation is less centralized in the United States, where the DNA Identification Act establishes the key elements of the regulation. The DNA Act mandates the FBI director to appoint DNA Advisory Board to draft the quality assurance for forensic standards. While there is a nationally recognized accreditation for the forensic science in the UK, the United States lacks accreditation in the forensic science. National Research Council, (2009) points out that forensic science disciplines in the United States are not standardized. Moreover, there is neither a uniform certification for the forensic practitioners nor accreditation for crime laboratories. In most jurisdictions, forensic practitioners are not required to be certified before practicing. Thus, quality of forensic training is vague in the United States because of the absence of continuing education, rigorous training, and accreditation program. Walport, (2015) argues that a quality assurance in the forensic science is overseen in the UK than the United States. Typically, the quality assurance is underpinning by the FSR (Science Regulator). Moreover, forensic science laboratories in England requires an accreditation before being allowed to practice. The UK accreditation comprises of SO17025 for laboratory accreditation, however, ISO17020 is used for the accreditation of crime analysis.

Mallett, & Evison, (2013) compares the United States and UK forensic practice with reference to forensic facial analysis. The authors argue that the forensic facial evidence in court have been used by law enforcement agents both in the United States and the UK. Typically, current approaches for facial identifications are morphological analysis, photogrammetry, and image superimposition. In both the UK and the USA, the CCTV (closed-circuit television) camera, mobile devices and video cameras have been used as sources of image evidence to prosecute criminals. Paradoxically, the courts and scientists have considered the eyewitness's facial identifications as error prone. Thus, the eyewitness identifications have not been used as a solid evidence to prosecute a suspect in both countries. In a case R. v. Turnbull in the UK, the Court of Appeal laid down a critical and important directive for courts to follow with reference to the eyewitness identification. In this guideline, the courts are required to prosecute a suspect based on the accuracy and reliability of the evidence "to avoid a miscarriage of justice." (Mallett, & Evison, 2013 p 860). In the United States, the courts accept eyewitness identification based on their reliability, and corroborative evidence is required before eyewitness identifications are accepted as solid evidence. The forensic facial evidence has been used as the corroborative evidence for the eyewitness identification. Admissible of forensic scientific evidence vary by jurisdiction in the United States based on the precedents of Frye v. the United States case in the Court of Appeal in 1923. The court held that a scientific evidence is admissible if it is within a relevant field.