The Importance Of Forensic Science In Criminal Justice

Forensic science and law are often seen as two opposing disciplines; forensic science is often presumed to be factual and law can be interpreted in multiple ways. Science and law reach conclusions in different ways which is an issue. Due to these differences, miscommunication is often the cause for miscarriages of justice. In order to address this problem, people working in the criminal justice system should have more knowledge of forensic science. There are many factors that contribute to the lack of understanding between forensic science and the people involved in the court process. Firstly, the adversarial model will be discussed in relation to how these procedures prevent effective communication between forensic evidence and lawyers. Secondly, the role that expert witnesses play in the presentation of scientific evidence and how jurors play a role in interpreting their evidence, will be considered. Thirdly it will be argued that lawyers and judges lack adequate knowledge of forensic science that is needed to conduct accurate trials. Lastly, possible solutions to improve the communication between forensic science and the actors involved in the criminal justice system. Juries, lawyers and judges should be more educated in understanding forensic science.

I. Before the 1980’s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics.

Forensic evidence has been shown to be reliable due to many factors of evidence such as DNA, blood, fingerprints, etc.; however, many cases have shown that

The idea of using the science has been started before the debuting of Sherlock Holmes in 1887, who had introduced about the forensic science to help criminal investigation. In history, the work of forensic scientists was performed by medical personnel. Until the end of eighteenth century, the attempts of French medical jurist Antoine Louis, crime solving Chinese book “ Hsi Duan Yu”(the washing way of wrongs), etc gave ideas about determining time of death, analyzing blood stain, identifying chemical used in crime, etc. After eighteenth century, the modern chemistry paved new way of identifying crime like the idea of measuring height, length of right ear and outstretched

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.

It might be hard to figure out which type of evidence to use but Forensic Science evidence is definitely the most useful. It uses DNA and blood with many other things to find the suspect or criminal. Forensic Science can hold all the facts of a case together. In “Forensic Science: Evidence, Clues, and Investigation” by Andrea Campbell, it shows how and why Forensic Science evidence is the most important.

In a case study on the National Institute of Justice, “Scientific evidence of some kind is expected in every case by 46% of the jurors, in murder cases by 74%, in assault cases by 43%, in rape cases by 73%, in breaking and entering cases by 49%, in theft cases by 38%, and in crimes involving a gun by 55%. Fingerprint evidence is expected in every case by 36% of the jurors, in murder cases by 61%, in assault cases by 35%, in rape cases by 41%, in breaking and entering cases by 71%, in theft cases by 59%, and in crimes involving a gun by 66%. Ballistics evidence is expected in every case by 32% of the jurors, in murder cases by 62%, in assault cases by 23%, in rape cases by 18%, in breaking and entering cases by 17%, in theft cases by 16%, and in crimes involving a gun by 77%. DNA evidence is expected in every case by 22% of the jurors, in murder cases by 46%, in assault cases by 28%, in rape cases by 73%, in breaking and entering cases by 18%, in theft cases by 12%, and in crimes involving a gun by 17%.” (Donald E. Shelton 2008)

between a cut (an injury that is longer than deep) and a stab wound (an injury

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later

"Bite mark evidence is the poster child of unreliable forensic science," said Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation at the New York-based Innocence Project, which helps wrongfully convicted inmates win freedom through DNA testing (Innocence Project, 2013, par. 3). Supporters of bite mark analysis argue it has helped convict child murderers and other notorious criminals, including serial killer Ted Bundy (Giannelli, 1996). Some arguing for the credibility of bite mark evidence contend that problems that have arisen are not about the method, but about the qualifications of those testifying.

his clearly shows how many forensic scientist work alongside with police and prosecution, and this could have an inherent effect on how they report their findings, which can be solely based on helping out the prosecution. Throughout Giannelli's (2009) article, there are various examples on many forensic scientists that clearly depict their malpractice in various caseloads, which have resulted in wrongful conviction of innocent individuals.

Forensic Science owes much of its development to countless people over thousands of years. Scientists from around the world are credited with expanding the doctrines and procedures used to classify or contrast physical information acquired from a crime scene. Also these scientists saw the need to consolidate these various concepts into logical methods that could be applied within the Criminal Justice system. However, while the acceptance of science in criminal cases has been around since before the Roman Empire, the idea of forensic science as a career is not quite 100 years old.

The use of scientific proof in a forensic setting has proven problematic for both judges and attorneys because most of them are not technically trained. Much of the difficulty encountered by courts when facing scientific evidence lies not in a lack of understanding the underlying science but in the task of choosing between competing scientific explanations tendered by individuals who seek to wear the mantle of