While the use of scientific evidence in solving crimes has helped in the identification of criminals and the exoneration of the innocent, there are certainly a number of problems that are associated with the use of forensic technology such as DNA testing within the criminal justice system. According to Edmond (2014), the use of forensic medical and scientific evidence within the criminal justice system has in a number of occasions led to wrongful convictions and hence a miscarriage of justice due to the fact that most of them are not reliable.
The aspect of the reading from the Innocent Project website that I find interesting is the aspect on forensic misconduct. According to this source, a majority of forensic science and medical examiners have been found to engage in questionable and unethical conduct such as concealing of part of forensic evidence that favor the accused or engaging in fraudulent forensic analysis (Innocent Project, 2016). There are also mistakes made by medical and forensic examiners resulting from inadequate training or lack thereof, insufficient resources and poor support for their work. All these have led to wrongful convictions that have later been overturned after anguish to the defendants. Also interesting is the aspect of reliability of scientific evidence due to the absence of scientific standards that govern forensic testing techniques. This leads to a compromised quality of scientific evidence. This assertion finds support in the work of Gabel (2014) who argues that there are numerous deficiencies and flaws in forensic science with serious implications for justice for individuals. There is therefore need, she suggests, for quality control of forensic science programs across the US and increased funding. These issues are interesting because the evidence of wrongful convictions resulting from such flaws and misconduct in medical or scientific forensics is overwhelming. I believe DNA evidence is to some extent not being used properly in our criminal justice system f due to the harrowing number of wrongful convictions being reported every year. However, as a report by Connors Lundregan Miller and McEwen (1996), DNA evidence has helped a great deal in exonerating innocent defendants.
The enactment of the Justice for All Act by the US Congress was seen by many as move in the right direction towards minimizing the impacts of use of scientific evidence resulting in wrongful conviction of innocent people. This is because the Act gives federal inmates the right to petition federal courts for DNA testing in support of innocence claims. I think this is a worthwhile legislation for a number of reasons. First, it expands DNA testing capacity of local, state and federal agencies r labs, increases or develops training programs for NDA collection and use and provides post-conviction DNA testing that aims at exonerating innocent people. By increasing or authorizing increased funding for new training programs in forensic technology, the Act represents a good move towards curing some of the limitations associated with forensic evidence brought about by insufficient resources that affect quality and accuracy. Moreover, the Act also protects victims’ rights to reopen proceedings in cases where new evidence comes to light as a result of forensic science. According to Ritter (2009), whereas DNA technology has become an important tool in ensuring justice within the criminal justice system by identifying offenders and eliminating the innocent from the guilty thus exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals, its use in a post-conviction environ comes with a lot of challenges that the Act comes in handy to address. It also represents an important reform in the country’s efforts to reduce or eliminate completely cases of miscarriage of justice whereby innocent people are convicted, sometimes to death due to the inadequacies of scientific evidence. It is a departure from the past whereby convictions were final irrespective of their apparent wrongfulness and defendants did not have an avenue to challenge the legality and accuracy of the evidence used against them at trial.
References
Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of NDA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: US D epartment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from https://www.ncjrs.gov//dnae
Edmond, G. (2014). The 'science' of miscarriage of justice. University of South Wales Law Journal, 37(1), 376-400.
Gabel, J. D. (2014). Realizing reliability in forensic science fron the ground up. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104(2), 283-352.
Innocent Project. (2016). Invalidated or improper forensic science. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/unvalidated-or-improper-forensic-science/
Ritter, N. (2009, March). Postconviction DAN testin g is at core of mjaor NIJ initiative. NIJ Journal, 262, 1-10. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from http://www.nij.gov/journals/262/pages/postconviction.aspx
