The article analyzed is: ‘Forensic investigation needs more science’ by Daniel Cressey.
Very often people are blind to their own limitations and venture into offering an opinion about something which is beyond their knowledge or understanding. These people often tend to hold views which favor their ability. Learning something new will lower their self-esteem, as it makes them recognize their limitations. Such troubles also exist in the field of forensic science. These limitations can lead to wrongly convict an innocent person as guilty.
The reliability of expert opinions and evidences that are used in the court of law are judged in terms of its scientific correctness. In 2009, United States National research council made a decision to adopt standardized protocols, and use sensitive techniques that will give reliable evidences. Standardizing a technique is very important in getting reliable results. Standardization minimizes variability between scores for the same sample and prevent the scientific instrument from providing a wrong reading. The importance of standardization cannot be overemphasized. The Congress has considered releasing a bill that will pay the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, to help the forensic department to develop standard measures.
The evidence used to convict a person must have professional, scientific and personal integrity. When the standards used in scientific investigation are substandard and outdated, the evidence loses its scientific integrity. Establishing standards will prevent experts from straying away from rigorous path set by these standards. This will also prevent experts from giving an opinion on things which they don’t know. In many instances, lack of proper standards and quality control lead to misuse of forensic science. (Cressey)
Setting standards and using standardized protocols may be challenging to apply in novel circumstances. Employing more scientists and subject matter experts, into the forensic department, will enhance the science in this field. The duty of forensic department is to explain the science behind a crime or evidence and not law enforcement. Skill development and expertise are required for recovering forensic science, from its current state. Unlike scientists who work in another laboratory, scientists in forensic may have to work from dirty crime scenes, where the evidences are already contaminated and trampled in many instances. In addition, the technicians in forensic laboratories face the pressure of providing evidence that is pleasing to the police or the prosecution. All these factors can hamper the ethical functioning of this department. Flaws in the functioning of forensic technicians and experts, can easily convict an innocent victim as guilty. Technical error or inappropriate role blending can increase the chances of producing unreliable results. (Cressey)
Scientific methods are not all the time fool proof. For example, the presence of a person’s DNA in the tool used to commit a crime does not necessarily mean that the person has committed the crime. The DNA of a person can be easily transmitted through a gloved hand, from the object a person touched to the knife which he has not touched. It is important to ensure that samples for forensic testing are collected taking into consideration all the necessary precautions. While the absence of a DNA in the crime scene can be confidently used to rule out a convict, the presence of a DNA does not necessarily confirm the convict to be guilty. It is important to use, more reliable evidences that will help provide an accurate opinion about the crime and the convict. (Cressey)
References:
Cressey, Daniel. "Forensic Investigation Needs More Science". Nature (2012): n. pag. Web. 2 Feb. 2016.
URL: http://www.nature.com/news/forensic-investigation-needs-more-science-1.11271
