Study
Abstract
Forensic photography is one of the four popular methods of documenting a crime scene. Together with videotaping, sketching and note taking, it constitutes an important part of the investigative and judicial process. Today’s court practice reveals that the photos taken by the forensic expert are often the only reliable, yet sufficient evidence to make the triumph of justice possible. In addition, not only the role of forensic photographers is critical in the context of recording and preserving lopus delicti evidence, but also these professionals are frequently summoned to a courtroom to give their professional opinion regarding authenticity of other photographic evidence adduced there.
This research investigates the importance of still photography from forensic and judicial perspectives, concluding that this type of photography is very distinct from creative and artistic ones. In addition, this research examines general admissibility guidelines of forensic photography for judicial analysis, inferring that such evidence should be reliable and authentic to be taken into consideration.
CONTENTS
I. Introduction 4
II. Discussion 5
a. Forensic perspectives of still photography 5
b. Judicial perspectives of forensic photography 7
III. Conclusion 8
References 9
Introduction
Forensic photography refers to a set of activities performed by the professional forensic experts with the purpose of capturing physical evidence, as well as recording and preserving the state of crime scene for potential judicial and prosecutorial evaluation (Robinson, 2012). There is a substantial difference between forensic photography and other types of this activity. Thus, Davies, Hertig and Gilbride (2015) argue that the main discrepancy lies in the context of purpose and quality characteristics of the outputs. Hereby, the practice demonstrates that while practically anyone can become a photographer, in order to be employed as professional forensic expert, the one needs to possess sufficient professional, relevant professional experience and appropriate academic background (Miller & Massey, 2016).
The grounds of taking photographs at the crime scene are different, but the major reason emanates from impossibility of the judge, the jurors and other stakeholders of the process to visit it and to examine it in person (Robinson, 2012). In addition, many crimes tried in the courts of law were perpetrated many years ago, thus, potential evidence might have been destroyed, and quite often photos from the crime scene are the only evidences, which can be used by the decision-makers in their deliberations (Rohatgi & Kapoorb, 2014).
Despite the fact that the evolution of videoing of the digital evidence has taken dramatic dimensions, the products of lopus delicti photography persist being one of the most mostly analyze the pieces of court evidence. In particular, still photography provides the most accurate images with high resolution, so that the tiniest traces led by the suspect become visible. Sometimes, these aspects are omitted by the investigators, and subsequent analysis of photographs remains the only method of making justice triumphant (Robinson, 2012).
The purpose of this paper is to analyze contemporary still forensic photography judicial and forensic aspects, evaluating its significance for the criminal justice process, and analyzing potential future refutations of this science.
Discussion
Forensic perspectives of still photography
Practically, forensic photography is very much distinct from other types of these activities. Thus, creative or artistic photography have very different standards, rules and procedures. However, the most important difference between these categories lies in the objectives, which are set before the forensic photographers. Firstly, it is essential emphasizing that the photographs of crime scenes help to refresh the memories of those, who were present at the examination stage. Secondly, it provides those, who were not present to become familiarized with the crime scene and the potential evidences left by the suspect (Davies, Hertig & Gildbride, 2015). Thus, the main objective of a forensic photographer is to capture every single detail of the crime scene, irrespective of the style or visual characteristics of a photo. The only quality requirements are that these pictures should have high resolution, and that they should be explicit enough to make possible observation of the tiniest details of a crime scene (Robinson, 2012). Rohatgi and Kapoorb (2014) commented that sometimes capturing photos at a crime scene is the only possible way of collecting evidence there.
Thus, it can be concluded that forensic photography pursues two primary objectives. Firstly, it aims at documenting a scene of crime and pieces of evidence left by the suspect and by the victim. Secondly, it is the message of recording and preserving such evidence (Miller & Massey, 2016).
In addition, it is important to highlight that educational requirements of a professional forensic expert and a creative photographer are strikingly different. Firstly, in order to qualify as a professional crime scene photographer, a certification with taking a minimum of 45 hours of forensic photography classes is mandatory (Miller & Massey, 2016). Those, who apply for such course, should have three years of prior forensic experience, which dealt with forensic photography as part of their job duties. Furthermore, the candidates will apply for a forensic photography course should pass written and practical examinations, aimed at evaluating their knowledge of the evidence collection procedure and preservation techniques. It is also relevant to stress that the development of digital cameras significantly simplified the working process of the forensic photographers. In particular, forensic experts can always modify the setting and review the just taken to ensure that they meet the requirements.
At the same time, it is important to highlight that not only professional capabilities are important in this area, but also critical skills and strong knowledgeability about the basics of a crime scene analysis is essential (Rohatgi & Kapoorb, 2014).
Furthermore, forensic photographers are often summoned to the courts of law to give their expert opinion regarding the validity of other photos. In particular, the proliferation of forged photographic evidence has taken flagrant dimensions. It is the forensic experts, who only capable of distinguishing between photograph, which was taken in reality, and the one, which has been created with computer techniques. This aspect is becoming more and more important in today's criminal justice (Davies, Hertig & Gildbride, 2014).
Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that forensic photography is one of the most important aspects of evidence collection and evidence interpretation processes. Not only forensic photographers help to record and preserve indispensable pieces of evidence, but also their professional opinion is often necessary for ascertaining the truth.
Judicial perspectives of forensic photography
The practice demonstrates that forensic corporate is an important part of a judicial process. However, it is important to emphasize that the photography itself does not constitute a piece of evidence, but rather what is photographed will be evaluated by the court (Rohatgi & Kapoorb, 2014). Two important criteria of admissibility are important in this regard, namely relevance of photography and its authenticity. In the cases where the prosecution team failed to implicate certified forensic photography is, it will be responsible for testifying that photography of crime scene was taken accurately.
There also several important statutory requirements which determine admissibility of the forensic photography in courts. Firstly, in order to ensure that the collected evidence is valid and number of protocols should be completed. Secondly, all images must be stored in unalterable format, which makes prospective interventions impossible. Thirdly, in case anything happens to the forensic expert, the photos must contain information about the type of camera and the date and place of their creation. Finally, the investigative authority should create adequate conditions for storing of the images and protocols before they are submitted to the court. Therefore, all personal should receive sufficient training in terms of image processing (Robinson, 2012).
Some commentators argued that the development of videotaping might someday supplant conventional forensic photography (Davies, Hertig & Gildbride, 2015). However, the practice demonstrates that the first is very unlikely to replace the second one of several reasons. In particular, among the most popular errors of videotaping are panning the camera, using inadequate focus and lighting, as well as choosing the zoom, which does not accurately depicts the crime scene. Videotaping also requires the investigative team to be silent during the process, which is hardly attainable nowadays.
Conclusion
References
Davies, S., Hertig, C. & Gilbride, B. (2015). Security supervision and management : the theory and practice of asset protection. Amsterdam Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier.
Miller, M. & Massey, P. (2016). The crime scene: a visual guide. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Robinson, E. (2012). Introduction to crime scene photography. Place of publication not identified: Academic Press.
Rohatgi, R. & Kapoorb, A.K. (2014). Importance of still photography at scene of crime: a forensic vs. judicial perspective. Journal of Harmonized Research in Applied Sciences, 2(4), 2014, 271-274
