Skip to main content

Poor Training


Poor Training

Forensic Scientists


Who are Forensic Scientists?

Forensic science is the gathering, identification, research, scientific interpretation and its presentation to the criminal justice system. Forensic scientists are those who specialize in this field and carry out these sciences to investigate and resolve criminal acts. There are three different types of forensic sciences: forensic hard sciences, forensic social sciences, and forensic practices. A forensic hard science is based out of a laboratory and includes criminalistics and anthropology. Forensic social sciences includes psychology and linguistics. And finally forensic practices are accounting and computer/digital forensics. Forensic scientists are not general scientists, meaning they are not proficient in every field of forensic science, but they are specialists and usually only practice one aspect of forensics. Forensic science laboratories are usually operated out of law enforcement agencies but rarely can be run by state or local governments.

Problems with Forensic Science/ Scientists

Due to the fact that most laboratories are operated by law enforcement agencies, many of the scientists and employees are seen as if they work for the police. This can be a problem due to the fact that police officers can unintentionally coerce the analysts towards certain results when scientific interpretation of evidence should be unbiased and without favoritism of the defense or prosecution (Garrett). There have been numerous studies that show that the way the evidence is presented to the analysts can affect the outcome of the testing. Additionally a major problem is a result of there being only so many forensic analysis laboratories. Crimes that leave behind physical evidence are constantly occurring so therefore the need for analysts is high (Garrett). Backlog of investigations is a extremely common occurrence and can cause many problems. 

Poor Training

Poor training is a result of and can effect backlogged cases and can have major side effects in its practice which include sending innocent people to jail. Many mistakes in the laboratory and incorrect expert witness testimonies are not done on purpose but are due to the fact that forensic scientists are under trained or poorly supervised. Poor training is a direct result of under funding (Crispino). Most forensic scientists obtain some form of a degree in a physical science such as chemistry or biology however, after they are trained in their specific fields right after they are hired. These fields can be things such as DNA testing, serology, or any other type of forensic science. They are taught to do analysts for quick turnover rates, which makes the chance for human error more plausible. Forensic scientists make assessments based on police investigation and law enforcement ties based on pressure from detectives and their moral compass (Crispino). Finally, they are forced to make testimonies on not exact sciences as if they were to uneducated jurors. As unintentional and good hearted these analysts could be they are still having real world effects with real world consequences (Crispino). Not only are innocent people being put in jail but guilty people are being allowed to walk free. The negative results from a incorrect analysts is that all analysts done by that forensic scientists in the past can be called into question which can cause problems for cases that rely heavily on that forensic evidence. However, today there has been a push for better forensic investigations.

How to Solve this Problem

There are changes being made to every aspect of the criminal justice system to ensure a smaller percentage of incorrect forensic sciences that result in wrongful convictions. Forensic analysts are being train to a national standard and face annual tests and training to ensure they are saying up to date with new scientific discoveries (Crispino). Also multiple check systems are being put into place throughout the forensic analysts portion of the investigation to guarantee that there are multiple opinions of the analysts that come up with the same conclusions (Crispino). Additionally crime labs are trying to practice a blind analysts where the forensic scientists are only given information that is necessary to perform their duties and not the opinions of law enforcement or the defense (Garrett). 


Work Cited 
Crispino, Frank, et al. "Education and Training in Forensic Intelligence: a New Challenge. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 47, no. 1. Mar. 2015, pp. 49-60. 
Garrett, B.L. Convicting the Innocent: Where criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Harvard University               Press. 106.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Case of Ronald Cotton

The Case of Ronald Cotton The Crime In July of 1984, in North Carolina, a white woman named Jennifer Thompson was sleeping in her apartment when a man cut her phone lines, shattered her porch light, and broke into her apartment. She woke up to the man standing next to her bed, holding a knife to her throat. Over the next half hour, she was brutally raped, but Jennifer made herself study her attacker so, if she ever got the chance, she would be able to identify him and send him to prison. After tricking her assailant into letting her get up, she escaped and went to the hospital. Her assailant fled the scene, only to rape another woman half a mile away. Investigation and Trial With Jennifer’s help, the police were able to create a composite sketch of her attacker, using the details she studied while she was being attacked. After the sketch was released to the public, tips were received about a man named Ronald Cotton who worked in the area, and had a prior felony r...
Post a Comment
Read more

David Shawn Pope

Voice Comparison Convicts The Crime In July of 1985 in Dallas County, Texas, a man knocked on a woman’s door asking if somebody lived there, and then immediately left. The following morning at 6 AM the woman awoke to find the man standing over her bed with a knife. He assaulted and raped her, and fled the scene. She called the police and reported the crime. In the next following weeks, she was contacted by an anonymous caller who she immediately claimed was the rapist because she recognized his voice. He called several times and the police were able to record a few of the calls. The Investigation The victim was able to help produce a composite sketch of the suspect. David Shawn Pope became a suspect after police saw him around the area and thought he looked similar to the sketch. Pope was presented to the victim multiple times in a photo lineup, along with other similar looking males and no identification was made. After there was no identification, those six peop...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bitemark case

Arizona v Ray Krone Background             On December 29, 1991, the body of thirty-six year old Kim Ancona was found nude and fatally stabbed in the men’s restroom of the bar she worked at in Phoenix, Arizona. The perpetrator left behind little evidence, only leaving blood at the crime scene which matched the victim’s type and saliva on her body coming from the most common blood type. No semen was found and no DNA testing was done on the blood or saliva. What investigators did rely on was bite-marks on the victim’s breast and neck.             The police learned from a friend of the victim’s that Ancona was to close up the bar with a regular customer, Ray Krone, that previous night. The police immediately asked Krone to make an impression of his teeth on Styrofoam for comparison. Ray Krone had no previous criminal record, had been honorable discharged from the military, and had ...
Post a Comment
Read more