Background:
James E. Kruse - Writing assignment 1 - 6/4/17 - CSAFE REU - Science Friday Response
First and foremost, I find it concerning that there is this much bias in the forensic science field. Prior to this point, I was aware that there were problems with funding and some bias that had to be corrected, but had never believed that it was as bad as this recording makes it out to be. The basis of the innocent until proven guilty foundation in law enforcement is extremely important and if forensics, which is a powerful tool in helping to determine this question, is being used in a biased way, it can undermine the entire field. This combined with both a lack of funding and the disbanding of the National Commission of Forensic Science makes one stop and look at the direction that we will be heading in the coming years in both research and practical application.
I cannot say that what the guests said was surprising, but I did find the way they approached the situation intriguing. Analyzing the different forensic sub disciplines based on their origins gives a different perspective on their validity and their ability to be used as solid evidence. I agree that this can have an influence on how people look at the data. If it was applied to crime from a different use, it will be analyzed differently than if it were developed strictly for criminal apprehension. For instance, I have taken classes in evolution, genetics, and cell biology. In doing so, I have seen how DNA is approached and analyzed. The same is true for chemistry based evidence. I have also seen how they used in a crime lab setting. At the same time, while I have not taken classes on ballistics, latent print, or other forms of pattern evidence, I have seen how they are analyzed in crime labs. There is a science behind it, but based on the statements in the podcast, there needs to be more time and funding put into them to make it an exact science, or as much of an exact science, as possible.
This is where organizations like CSAFE and other forensics research foundations come into play. By putting time and funding into understanding the science and statistics behind the evidence, we can not only make sure that the correct person is apprehended, but allow others involved in the case (i.e. the jury, judge, lawyers, etc.) to truly understand the case and apply the evidence thusly.
Prior to listing to this podcast, I would have been fairly confident in the science behind a case where I to be prosecuted for a crime that I did not commit. Now, I am not as sure. I still believe that forensic science is one of the best ways to defend a criminal case, but if the field is as shaky as the podcast has laid it out to be, something needs to be something done about it. Like I said above, I would still be fairly confident in toxicology and DNA evidence due to their origins and the extensive research that has been done in the fields, but I would now be more concerned with pattern evidence that has a basis in law enforcement, such as latent print examination and ballistics/tool marks.
Based on the podcast, I cannot say that the criminal justice system is upholding innocent until proven guilty as best it could. This comes down to their multiple statements on indigent defendants and the way the system is not supporting the forensics field as a vital science. Like any other system, there needs to be time and funding put into the field if it is going to work. Then, there needs to be a staff of qualified and unbiased people performing all analysis and making the determinations. A national foundation, if run ethically and without bias, could be a great start in making sure that innocent until proven guilty is a reality when it comes to the forensic portion of a trial.