Forensic Science in the USA vs. United Kingdom: A Comparison

Introduction

Over the last two decades, forensic science has assisted in producing valuable evidence that has contributed to the successful conviction and prosecution of criminals, as well as the exoneration of innocent citizens. Advances in forensic science and DNA technology have greatly assisted law enforcement agencies in identifying and prosecuting criminals. In the United States and the UK, many cases that were formerly unsolved have now been resolved through the work of forensic science investigators (National Research Council, 2009).

Forensics, or forensic science, is a field of investigation that draws on diverse scientific disciplines in law, criminal justice, and civil services. This practice requires the application of scientific knowledge and quantitative, qualitative, and empirical skills to collect and analyze data that will assist in presenting evidence in a tribunal or court of law. The methods by which evidence is collected and analyzed require advanced technology and scientific knowledge to test and validate results (Mallett & Evison, 2013). While the United Kingdom and the United States employ the same technology and scientific methods to carry out forensic investigations, notable differences remain between the two countries' forensic science systems.

Organizational Structure and DNA Database Systems

The application of forensic science in the United States consists of a diverse network of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, private forensic laboratories, law enforcement identification units, crime laboratories, quality system providers, and defense attorneys. While forensic science practice is more decentralized in the United States, the UK's forensic DNA system is more centralized. Goulka et al. (2010) argue that the UK criminal justice system has capitalized on DNA forensic evidence more effectively than the U.S. forensic criminal system. The UK's forensic DNA analysis is reportedly less expensive and delivers results more quickly than the U.S. DNA system. By contrast, the U.S. DNA forensic analysis is considered relatively more expensive, rigid, and burdened by bureaucracy, while the UK forensic DNA system is more cost-effective and assists in solving a larger number of serious crimes.

Goulka et al. (2010) further note that the UK maintains a single DNA database managed by the UK Home Office, a semi-independent arm of government. In the United States, the DNA database system is authorized by the DNA Identification Act, which established CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), managed by the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). A major structural difference between the two countries is that private forensic laboratories deliver forensic services to police forces in the UK. The NFFA (National Forensic Framework Agreement) plays a major role in coordinating these services, particularly in England. Key private organizations delivering forensic services in the UK include LGC Forensics, Forensic Science Service, Key Forensic Services, and Orchid Cellmark. Smaller private forensic laboratories also contribute to service delivery for police forces across the UK.

By contrast, private forensic laboratories play a more limited role in the United States, where public laboratories predominantly deliver forensic services. However, a number of private forensic firms are permitted to handle specialized DNA analyses, exigent requests, and excess demand. Private forensic laboratories are also allowed to conduct DNA typing for sample categories that are uploaded to and managed by CODIS, though CODIS itself remains the exclusive purview of the FBI and public-sector laboratories.

Funding for Forensic Science

Another significant difference between the UK and U.S. forensic systems lies in the area of funding. In the UK, the central government is responsible for funding forensic science expansion; however, police forces pay for forensic services out of their own budgets. In the United States, the federal government bears primary responsibility for funding forensic services. For example, the federal government provides annual grants to more than 200 public laboratories and outsources work to other private or public laboratories across the country.

Butler (2015) notes that the U.S. National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is responsible for funding forensic services. The NIJ has awarded research grants totaling $125 million annually for the advancement of forensic science. Between 2009 and 2014, the NIJ issued 23 funding solicitations, resulting in funding for 269 research projects. By April 2015, the NIJ had produced 255 publications and 77 final technical reports. With respect to forensic research specifically, the NIJ approved $48 million for over 100 projects covering topics that include human DNA quantitation, alternative genetic markers, non-human DNA, mitochondrial DNA, and sperm separation and detection.

While funding for the advancement of forensic science is substantial in the United States, funding for forensic scientific research in the United Kingdom is considerably more limited. The House of Commons (2013) reveals that forensic researchers face significant challenges in obtaining funding from the UK government. In recent years, police forces have reduced expenditures on forensic science due to declining annual budgets.

References

Butler, J. M. (2015). U.S. initiatives to strengthen forensic science & international standards in forensic DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 18, 4–20.

Goulka, J. E., Matthies, C., & Steinberg, P. (2010). Toward a comparison of DNA profiling and databases in the United States and England. RAND Corporation.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2013). Forensic science. House of Commons.

Mallett, X., & Evison, M. P. (2013). Forensic facial comparison: Issues of admissibility in the development of novel analytical technique. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(4), 859–865.

National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. National Academies Press.

Walport, M. (2015). Forensic science and beyond: Authenticity, provenance and assurance — evidence and case studies. Annual Report of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser.