Literature Review

Ahimsa Butler

Professor Goff

English 1010

July 18,2014

Errors in Forensic Science

In most criminal investigations, crimes are solved with the help of forensic scientists analyzing evidence from a crime scene, using scientific methods. Some of the procedures to an examination are more reliable than others. The analysis gained plays a huge role in criminal cases, which sometimes can end in false convictions. The forensic scientist is responsible for accurate results. But forensic scientists are humans and are capable of making mistakes. As a forensic scientist bias analysis can occur from many possibilities. So the question is, how reliable are analysis, when bias mistakes and errors can occur? The purpose of this paper is to bring forward the views and the influences that can cause errors to occur and the solutions that can help eliminate the mistakes.

As a forensic scientist, it is their responsibility to use their best judgment when concluding an analysis for a case. These analyses play a huge role in criminal cases and the forensic scientist is responsible for accurate results. The examiner will also act as a witness to a case to help find possible suspects, often in times, resulting in an arrest and or drastic consequences such as life in jail or even the death penalty.. As a forensic scientist bias analysis can occur from the outside world influences and beliefs. In some cases, bias analysis or even tampered evidence have resulted in false convictions.

In researching I have found there are many influential errors that can occur, some are just honest mistakes. Forensic scientists being human beings, researchers have found that this reason may be one of the highest influences to can lead to mistakes in an analysis.

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.

Another influence bought 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. When solving a case, forensic scientists may work with law enforcement or FBI agents to further the process to solve the case.

Due to this process, many errors occur unintentionally as well as intentional. 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 apart 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.

According to multiple researchers, there are solutions to each of these influences to eliminate bias and criticism from occurring in analysis. One suggestion, pertaining to the monopoly, would be to break it. Break the monopoly by separating the laboratories from the law enforcement and FBI agencies. The separation would give the laboratories competition and eliminate the forensic scientist day-to-day interactions with other occupations within the justice field. Each laboratory would be concerned with the science itself, within the forensic field. Each laboratory would do evaluations on each other. This would give room for forensic scientists to improve their skills and aware of the mistakes.

Another solution proposed would be to perform “blind testing.” In this process the examiner would perform the procedures without any additional information about a case or without making any assumptions based on previous cases. And the gained analysis should be followed by a second blind test. A legit forensic scientist should evaluate the second blind test.

Other solutions would be to add or create advanced technology to review a forensic scientist analysis, or the other way around. The solution would eliminate human vulnerabilities and criticism from interfering with gaining an analysis. Along with eliminating biased mistakes occurring, researchers say, this should be apart of the curriculum to future forensic scientists. They should integrate classes with the concept of thinking pass making biased decisions.

I have explained the problems that can influence or cause error in analyses and the solutions proposed to eliminate them from occurring. Forensic scientists may be our only source to analyzing evidence to help solve a case. But the problems surrounding mistakes to occur, based on judgments or day to day influences, have solutions. In conclusion, Forensic science could use some improvement.

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.

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.