Argumentative Essay (MWA 3)

Ahimsa Butler

Professor goff

July 26^th

In this day and age, there is a huge amount of crime. We, as a society, are satisfied when a crime is committed and the suspect is put behind bars. Forensic scientists and their analysis help fulfill this process. Although these analysis play a major role in convictions, in some cases, influential and bias mistakes can occur from an examiner not taking the proper scientific approach. Because of this, forensic science isn’t reliable.

Some may disagree with forensics being unreliable, because of what the media displays about the forensic world and proof shown to them why the results are accurate. Some may even believe forensics is reliable because we believe it is the forensic scientists' moral obligation, while performing their job as well as being properly trained and responsible to bring forth accurate results. The truth is, based on research, a lot of influences may interfere with an accurate analysis leading to wrongful convictions. In this paper I will give examples of why forensics isn’t reliable and provide cases and examples to prove the information.

Forensic analysis are gained by a process, in which a forensic scientist is subject to give his/or her opinion. The opinion is given after comparing evidence and samples found in a crime scene and matching it to the correct suspect, and then is used as liable evidence to convict the suspect in a trial. In this case, an inaccurate analysis could be influenced by an examiners beliefs or judgments. Forensic scientists, as human beings, can become vulnerable to the function of the way they think. They may make criticized assumptions based on their beliefs, unknowingly. And according to one researcher, he explains how some forensic scientists may carry their preexisting beliefs from previous occupations in the criminal justice field.

Forensic scientists, who have been in the field for many years, may get comfortable performing the same procedures. Over time, short cuts are taken, leaving out very important steps in a case. These steps may seem unimportant at the time, but can make a vital difference in the outcome of the results and the case.

They may make a judgment based on previous cases. Getting too comfortable in a position, causes unjust results. A scientist who feels one case is just like another one, based on several similarities, will submit false results. The omitted steps could definitely be a deciding factor in the case.

Another reason is contamination. In a crime scene investigation, there are a

number of people working with the evidence found. What is important to one group, may not seem important to another. This could cause the evidence to no longer be legit, if not handled properly.

Another influence brought to attention is, the monopoly that exists in the forensic field. The monopoly, according to Roger Koppi, Professor of Economics Finance, each laboratory belongs to a specific law enforcement agency. Forensic scientists work with attorneys and police officers to solve a case. Many cases have been reviewed and evidence has been found that police officers or attorneys may play a role in convincing a forensic scientist to bring forth false information. As forensic scientists working with law enforcement, researchers believe, when interaction among the two occurs, additional information may be given to the forensic scientist, causing the examiner to gain a biased analysis.

This information found outside of the laboratory, researchers say is irrelevant to any case, if it is used to gain an analysis, because it is not a part of the procedural process the forensic scientists are to perform. In addition to working with law enforcement, an examiner depends on them for pay, raises, and evaluations. This can lead forensic scientists to, knowingly, commit to biased mistakes or even tamper with evidence because of them being dependent on their co-workers, similar to peer pressure. Multiple suspects have been wrongfully convicted because of tampering.

Along with tampering, forensic scientists may even go to the extent of hiding data or withhold information that may have a big significance to the case. According to the Virginia Law Review, many cases that were reviewed, involved failing to submit information that would clear a suspect. In the case of “State of Louisiana v. Gene Bibbins”:

“In Gene Bibbins’s case, Annie Michelli of the Baton Rouge City

Police had testified at trial that any comparison between Bibbins’s

fingerprints and a latent print found on the window at the crime

scene was inconclusive, explaining that When asked, “Did you

double-check your conclusion with the state crime lab?” and,

“Did they have the same results?” she answered to both questions,

“Yes, Ma’am.” That testimony was false; the state crime lab’s finding

and report had excluded Bibbins. The district court in

a civil rights lawsuit filed by Bibbins denied Michelli’s motion.

Michelli’s testimony at Bibbins trial was that she was unable to

identify Bibbins as a match to the fingerprint sample. Michelli

also testified that she double checked her results. However, it is undisputed that a Louisiana state police crime lab report made

by Sybil Guidry showed a contrary result. Guidry’s findings excluded Bibbins as a match,” ( "Virginia Law Review(2009): 1-97).

Last but not least, Education may play a role in mistakes occurring. Researchers say, a forensic scientist may not be fully educated or experienced in the forensic field. With down-sizing and cut backs, many occupations are hiring younger, inexperienced employees for less pay. These newer employees may not know the importance of following procedures and not taking short cuts. Or, they may not feel the need to double check their work, or to let someone else review their findings.

If blind testing, where outside information and influences are not allowed, were made mandatory for criminal cases, I feel there would be less false convictions in our judicial system.

Works Cited

Budowle, Bruce, et al. "A Perspective on Errors, Bias, and Interpretation in the Forensic Sciences and Direction for Continuing Advancement*." Journal of Forensic Sciences 54.4 (2009): 798-809.

Garrett, Brandon L., and Peter J. Neufeld. "Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions."Virginia Law Review(2009): 1-97.

Kassin, Saul M., Itiel E. Dror, and Jeff Kukucka. "The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions." Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2.1 (2013): 42-52.

Koppl, Roger. "How to improve forensic science." European Journal of Law and Economics 20.3 (2005): 255-286.

Miller, Larry S. "Procedural bias in forensic science examinations of human hair." Law and Human Behavior 11.2 (1987): 157.

Saks, M. J., et al. "Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States." Science & Justice 43.2 (2003): 77-90.