NAS Forensic Report

On February 18, 2009, The National Academy of Sciences published a congressionally mandated forensic science report that had been researched by the Nation Research Council. The conclusion: the field of forensic science was grossly deficient (New York Times); whether it was in regards to the poorly funded laboratories or the poorly trained “expert” scientists that run the lab. The main concentration of the report was focused on the unreliable and inaccurate forensic methods and the interpretation of such methods by the poorly trained scientists.

The report touches on the subject of following scientific principles when examining evidence from a crime scene. These rules are put in place in order to keep bias out of the scientists’ interpretation of such evidence. The report states that “the law’s admission of and reliance on forensic evidence in criminal trials depends critically on (1) the extent to which forensic science discipline is founded on a reliable scientific methodology, leading to accurate analysis of evidence and proper reports of findings and (2) the extent to which practitioners in these forensic science disciplines that rely on human interpretation adopt procedures and performance standards that guard against bias and error” (NAS Report, pg. 81). Basically, not all people who have careers in such scientific disciplines abide by these rules. They allow their own bias to influence how they will interpret the evidence presented to them for examination.

One way to keep such biases from occurring is to make all scientific laboratories independent of the police department. This would allow the director to have an equal voice, whereas before the director had to report to the head of the agency. Being independent from a law enforcement agency would allow the laboratories to set the priority of cases, and the scientists aren’t given an opportunity to be swayed by the police department.

All results for scientific methods should have the uncertainty of the measurements taken included within the report. This would allow for one in court to show with more accuracy and confidence that such an instrument or DNA profile would match with the evidence. Along with such reporting, the use of terminology used in reports and courts by forensic scientists may have a profound effect on the trier of fact (i.e. judge or jury); such terms as “match," “similar to," “consistent with," and “cannot be excluded as a source of.” The use of such terms may affect the way the trier of fact interprets and evaluates the evidence presented to them. No consensus on the meaning of the terms has been reached.

The report has been published to point out all the bad aspects of forensic science in order to bring it to the attention of society. Due to popular culture, we believe scientists can’t make a mistake because science provides hard, undeniable facts. We forget that forensic scientists are humans, science is imperfect, and humans make mistakes.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589#toc

Forensic Science: An Evolving World

As one can tell from the about me column, I am paving my way to work with forensic evidence. This leads me to the topic of my blog page: Forensic Science. In order to define forensic science, one needs to understand what science and forensics means. Forensic could be defined as belonging to the courts of law. Science could be defined as an orderly body of knowledge used to increasingly understand the physical world. Science requires that one has skill, technique or ability based on training, discipline, and experience. Science is ever changing.

Now that we understand the two meanings, we can combine the two words. Forensic science, in it’s broadest definition, is the application of the natural sciences to matters of law. According to National Institute of Justice, forensic science includes:
Identifying, collecting, and examining evidence from crime scenes.
Analyzing evidence in the laboratory.
Presenting findings in court.
Such science can include chemistry, biology, forensic nursing, forensic anthropology, and forensic odontology to name a few.

With the breakthrough of new technology, evidence that was considered to be poor quality can now be used to against a suspect (NIJ). Such technology is paving the way for solving cold cases, and finally giving piece of mind to families and friends.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/welcome.html