Forensics experts have made many mistakes regarding handling and analyzing evidence. This has led to people being wrongly convicted. Ray Krone was one of those who was wrongly convicted because of mistakes in the forensic laboratory. There have been experts such as Jacqueline Blake, who broke protocol regarding evidence that led to wrongful convictions. It is important to learn how and why this happens to better prepare those in the criminal justice field to handle such situations and try to minimize the amount of errors in forensics.
Mistakes and Neglect
The current status of forensics in the criminal justice system is imperfect. There is a belief by some in the general public that forensic evidence is always right (Saks & Koehler, 2008). This belief is wrong and dangerous because it can sway the opinion of those on the jury. Forensic science has not had standardized system of guidelines that experts and laboratories follow (Saks & Koehler, 2008). This has led to many errors and mistake. Without non-profits like The Innocent
…show more content…
The state police also examined a sample of shooting cases and 19 of them had serious errors out of 200 (Baker, B., 2009). This is about ten percent of errors. The audit discovered that there were many corners cut and other mistakes that were made by not being thorough (Michigan State Police, 2008).
Conclusion
Forensic evidence is an important aspect of the criminal justice system. When forensic experts do not correctly do their job they can have a huge effect on many people. The cases highlighted showed some of the effects that happen when forensic experts do not keep high standards in their job. A few mistakes or a few shortcuts can lead to a innocent person being executed, a guilty murder roaming the streets freely, lawsuits resulting in millions of dollars, crime labs being shutdown, and
Since the airing of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the other televised series that followed have led jurors to compare fiction with reality. The shows have changed the view on the real world of forensic science as the series have a world of forensic science of their own. For this paper the televised series titled Bones by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs will be used as an example for comparison. In the series Bones Dr. Temperance Brenan arrives at the scene of the crime to examine the skeletal remains found in the scene of the crime equipped with one or more forensic kits. Upon momentarily examining the skeletal remains Dr. Brenan is able to determine the gender, ethnicity, and age. When this type of scenario is compared to nonfictional
Jurors have unrealistic ideas of evidence processing. ”Such programs give the impression that forensic laboratories are fully staffed with highly trained personnel, stocked with a full complement of state-of-the-art instrumentation and rolling in the resources to close every case in a timely fashion.” (Houck 85) Forensic laboratories face funding deficits, not enough suitably trained staff and the consistent advancement of technology. University of Maryland forensic scientist Thomas Mauriello estimates that about 40 percent of the forensic science shown on CSI does not exist. Carol Henderson, director of the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology and the Law at Stetson University College of Law, told a publication of that institution that jurors are “sometimes disappointed if some of the new technologies that they think exist are not used.” (Houck 87) Investigators often have to explain to victims that it is not possible to collect a sample of...
2. Did you easily find the National Criminal Justice Reference Service when you searched for NCJRS on the search tools?
With matted hair and a battered body, the creature looked at the heartless man outside the cage. Through the dark shadows you could only see a pair of eyes, but those eyes said it all. The stream of tears being fought off, the glazed look of sheer suffering and despair screamed from the center of her soul, but no one cared. In this day in age I am ashamed to think that this is someone's reality, that this is an accurate description of a human being inside a Canadian women's prison . Exposing the truth behind these walls reveals a chauvinistic, corrupt process that serves no greater purpose. The most detrimental aspect of all is society's refusal to admit the seriousness of the situation and take responsibility for what has happened.
In 1992, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of arson murder, where a fire that was presumably started by him, killed his three children, and in 2004 he was put to death. Later, the Texas Forensic Science Commission, established in 2005, found that none of the evidence used while prosecuting Mr. Willingham was valid, and that the fire was in fact, accidental. Unfortunately, many cases like this have occurred in our nation’s history, where human error was to blame for convicting an innocent person. The American Justice system will only be as accurate as the science and technology that we have in place to remove human error during the process. The movie The Wrong Man is a perfect example of human error in the justice system convicting an innocent
Along with eyewitness identification, unreliable forensic science has been the cause of around 50% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA testing (understand the causes). There are three factors that lead to unreliable or improper forensic science. They are the absence of scientific standards, improper forensic testimony, and forensic misconduct (understand the causes). The absence ...
Rape, murder, theft, and other crimes almost always leave a devastating mark on the victim. More often than not, it would be impossible to identify the perpetrator a crime without forensic science and the technology it uses. Forensic science allows investigators to unmask the secrets of the crime scene. Evidence gathered at the crime scene helps to identify the guilty party, murder weapon, and even the identity of the victim (Harkawy, 1991: 276). The new technologies enables the forensic experts to have better and faster access to accumulated information, to be more accurate in the identification of victims or delinquents, and minimizes the possibility of wrongful accusations. New technology has improved the methods and techniques that forensic scientists and law enforcement investigators use, in order to provide a safer environment for other people. Information technology is one of the most important aspects in forensic science. It is very important for the forensic experts to receive the undisturbed evidence, such as fingerprints left at the crime scene, as quickly as possible, for more accurate readings. Thus using space technology, such as satellite communication, enables the forensic experts to "gather and digitize evidence at the crime scene, enter it into an on-site computer, and beam the data to a crime lab for swift analysis" (Paula, 1998: 12). Therefore, due to the use of this technology, forensic experts in laboratories can examine the evidence in short time, and the possibility of damage or unlawful manipulation of the evidence before the trial is minimal (Paula, 1998: 12). More often than not, "criminals" wear gloves at the time of the crime, thus to obtain a fingerprint...
Another problem in Crime scene investigation is lost evidence. Often wide spread trampling of evidence in a crime scene can show to be very damaging. Also, implicating practice in a crime scene office can be hurtful if the rules are not regulated. Also, showing examples of detectives showing positive good examples for other officers to follow (Byrd 2).
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
Forensic evidence can provide just outcomes in criminal matters. However, it is not yet an exact science as it can be flawed. It can be misrepresented through the reliability of the evidence, through nonstandard guidelines, and through public perception. Forensic science can be dangerously faulty without focus on the ‘science’ aspect. It can at times be just matching patterns based on an individual’s interpretations. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and forever alter a person’s life due to a perceived “grey area” (Merritt C, 2010) resulting in a loss of confidence in the reliability of forensic evidence.
In the following literature review, scholarly and peer-reviewed journals, articles from popular news media, and surveys have been synthesized to contribute to the conversation pertaining to forensics in pop culture in the courtroom and the overall criminal justice system. This conversation has become a growing topic of interest over just the past few years since these crime shows started appearing on the air. The rising popularity of this genre makes this research even more relevant to study to try to bring back justice in the courtroom.
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
Forensic Science, recognized as Forensics, is the solicitation of science to law to understand evidences for crime investigation. Forensic scientists are investigators that collect evidences at the crime scene and analyse it uses technology to reveal scientific evidence in a range of fields. Physical evidence are included things that can be seen, whether with the naked eye or through the use of magnification or other analytical tools. Some of this evidence is categorized as impression evidence2.In this report I’ll determine the areas of forensic science that are relevant to particular investigation and setting out in what method the forensic science procedures I have recognized that would be useful for the particular crime scene.
As far back as 1832, James Marsh was the first to use forensics at trial to give evidence as a chemist in 1832. Since that time forensic science and evidence has come a long way in various ways and technology to help in determine if the suspect is guilt or not, through such things as DNA testing, blood, and fingerprints. The first forensic police crime lab was created in 1910. The contributions of Dr. Edmond Locard, a French scientist and criminologist, proposed that “everything leaves a trace”. This principle is still valid today as it was so many years ago. No matter how small, the specialized trained technicians and investigators can take these methods and go to a crime scene to get evidence. “Forensic science is the application of sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, computer science and engineering to matters of law.” (Office of Justice, 2017) These different sciences can help achieve and assist in solving a case. Forensic science has also the ability to prove that a crime was committed, it can find the elements of the crime, it can help place the suspect at the scene and whether the suspect had any contact with the victim. However, in the last several years the techniques and with the use of technology the evidence that forensic science uncovers can also exonerate an innocent individual who has been falsely accused of the
The purpose of criminal justice system is to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and for this purpose forensic evidence has apparently played a major role. But looking at the present scenario, it can be observed that the basic purpose or rather the advantage of forensic evidence over other evidences seem to have been rendered as defeated. As the certainty, which was offered by such evidence is not fully reliable and has been construed wrongly by the courts. Hence it can be observed from above mention points that forensic science has failed in providing a better administration of criminal justice system.