Forensic Science and Science

¶ … Forensic Science

Since its introduction in the 8th century by Chinese authorities who used fingerprints to identify the authenticity of clay sculptures and documents (Forensic science history, 2016), modern forensic science has experienced a number of trends that have fundamentally changed the manner in which practitioners use technology to investigate crime scenes to provide courts of competent jurisdiction with the information they need to formulate decisions concerning guilt and innocence. To gain some new insights concerning these recent trends, this paper reviews the relevant literature to describe four salient features each of objective forensic techniques such as DNA and empirical forensic techniques such as fingerprinting. An assignment of weights to various measures that are intended to improve the performance of forensic science practitioners and supporting rationale is following by a discussion concerning recent federal ruling concerning forensic science evidence. Finally, a description of two measures that can be used to minimize the so-called "CSI effect" on juries is followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning these trends in forensic science in the conclusion.

Description of four salient features of objective forensic techniques such as DNA

1. Forensic techniques for the detection of chemicals, explosive residues and drugs involve specific technical methods for instruments and sample handling;

2. The results of objective forensic techniques provide scientifically verifiable individual or group identification;

3. The technologies used in forensic techniques are complex; and,

4. Practitioners require high levels of education, training and accreditation to perform forensic tests.

Description of four salient features of empirical forensic techniques such as fingerprinting

1. Empirical forensic techniques must rely on technical skills, anecdotal expert experience and subjective interpretation;

2. Empirical forensic techniques require verification by a second examiner;

3. Empirical forensic techniques such as fingerprinting assume that no two fingerprints are alike; and,

4. Empirical forensic techniques require that steps be taken to preserve the evidence.

Ranking of forensic science measures intended to improve performance and supporting rationale

a. Accreditation by professional bodies. In order for the results of objective forensic techniques to be accurate and valid, forensic laboratories must be accredited by relevant professional organizations. In this regard, Buker (2012) reports that, "Accreditation is suggested as a must for the U.S. crime labs to improve the quality of examinations conducted and to diminish the likelihood of malpractice problem" (p. 179). Most forensic laboratories in the United States are accredited by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) and in order to be accredited by this professional body, forensic laboratories must demonstrate their ability to: (a) maintain their physical abilities, (b) employ up-to-date technical instruments, and (c) demonstrate the existence of appropriate documentation and quality control/assurance procedures (Buker, 2012, p. 179). In addition, accreditation also requires that credentialing for laboratory personnel has been accomplished (Buker, 2012). Moreover, in order to remain accredited, forensic laboratories must pass periodic inspections by the ASCLD to ensure that they are maintaining the requisite standards (Buker, 2012). The importance of accreditation is described by one practitioner as follows:

We have scientists coming from other laboratories reviewing all of our work, making sure that it's up to standards that exist throughout the whole country and across the world, making sure that we're not doing anything that's different from what is generally accepted in the forensic science community, maintaining that accreditation I think is really, really, really important. (cited in Buker, 2012, p. 179)

Based on this characterization, the importance of the accreditation receives an 9 on a scale from 1 to 10 because this process serves to ensure that the next two issues discussed below are adequate and appropriate.

b. Training. Given the sophisticated nature of most of the equipment and analytical techniques that are used in modern forensic science applications, the importance of training for forensic laboratory personnel cannot be overstated. In addition, ensuring that all forensic laboratory personnel are appropriately trained can make the laboratory's operation more efficient, and many forensic laboratories in the United States currently suffer from backlogs due to untrained staff (Schwabe & Davis, 2009). Taken together, the importance of training receives a 7.5 on a scale from 1 to 10.

c. Quality control. Forensic laboratories must have relevant quality control protocols in place in order for the findings that emerge from their forensic analysis to avoid mistakes, bias and fraud and to confirm their ongoing reliability and validity (Shelton, 2012). Quality control procedures can also ensure that best industry practices are followed and identify opportunities for improving in existing methods (Shelton, 2012). Weighed against accreditation and training, quality control receives a 7 on a scale from 1 to 10.

Federal rulings for forensic science evidence

Description of two features in each of the following that would strengthen the presentation of forensic evidence in all jurisdictions:

a. Chain of custody of evidence and proper storage. Ensuring that a verifiable chain of custody of evidence is maintained and that evidence is properly stored, even for length periods of time, represent essential steps to maintaining the integrity of evidence that may be needed in the future (Moyes, 2002). Any irregularities in the chain of custody or storage of evidence can be grounds for refusing admission of the evidence for courts of competent jurisdiction (Moyes, 2002). Therefore, the chain of custody must be unbroken and steps taken to ensure the integrity of evidentiary samples even if they must be stored for years (Moyes, 2002).

b. Testing and reporting of results. Forensic laboratories should ensure that (a) they use the most appropriate analytical method for the type of evidence that is involved and that the results that are obtained are unbiased; and (b) the results of forensic analyses are reported to interested stakeholders in a timely fashion (Ram, 2011).

5. CSI effect. Two measures that can be taken to minimize the CSI effect on juries

According to Cole and Dioso-Villa (2009), "The term CSI effect describes a growing public expectation that police labs can do everything television labs can. It is alleged that media influence causes potential jurors to have distorted views of the capacity of forensic science to generate evidence in criminal prosecutions" (p. 1336). These exaggerated perspectives of the true capabilities of even the most sophisticated forensics laboratory have been cited as being responsible for influencing jury verdicts, with jurors refusing to convict defendants in cases where they would have absent the CSI effect (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2009).

Therefore, the first measure that can be taken to minimize the CSI effect on juries is to ensure that they are made aware of the realities of the limitations of modern forensic science to avoid inflated expectations concerning the "probative value of forensic evidence" (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2009). The second measure that can be taken to minimize this effect would be to actually discuss the CSI effect with jury members and how it can affect their decision-making process with respect to the forensic evidence presented.