The Fight To Reform Forensic Science

carmendrahl writes "Despite a 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences that found the science in crime labs wanting, very little reform of forensic science has taken place. At a session about the Innocence Project, a group that exonerates prisoners with DNA evidence, speakers called on chemists to join the fight for reform. But forensic chemists don't all agree on what needs reforming."

Comments

First Step: ban tv

[Spy Handler]

People watch shows like Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime and think forensic results are infallible and always available in less than 40 minutes.

Re:First Step: ban tv

[CanHasDIY]

People watch shows like Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime and think forensic results are infallible and always available in less than 40 minutes.

What, you mean they can't magically increase the pixel resolution of any image or video, just by looking at it and saying, "enhance" over and over???

Blasphemer!

Re:First Step: ban tv

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

People watch shows like Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime and think forensic results are infallible and always available in less than 40 minutes.

I was on a jury a few years back, and the first thing out of the prosecutors mouth was "This isn't csi. We don't have DNA evidence. We aren't going to bring out 10 dramatic witnesses", etc. Made me wonder why we're contemplating putting someone in jail for the rest of their lives if we aren't interested in spending the money on the evidence needed to really confirm a jury finding.

I know some things that happen on tv aren't even plausible in real life at any price. But some of the stuff that gets passed in front of a jury is pretty weak.

Must-see Frontline

[digitalaudiorock]

I posted this link on a related story some time back. This is a must see if you think you know how bad forensic science (or lack of science) really is:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/

Re:Must-see Frontline

[CanHasDIY]

I posted this link on a related story some time back. This is a must see if you think you know how bad forensic science (or lack of science) really is:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/

Here's the ProPublica article written in conjunction with the PBS Frontline episode linked above, for those who like to read rather than watch.

Re:Must-see Frontline

[Kagato]

People should keep in mind that the "Crime Lab" isn't an independent laboratory. A lot of people think that the crime lab is there to find the scientific truth (just like in CSI), when in fact they are there to serve the needs of the police and/or the prosecution. A lot of the time that means cherry picking what tests they are going to run to suit the needs presupposed by the authorities.

The sloppy science is just an extension of the prevailing attitude. Labs are often run in a highly politicized environment where the emphasis is getting convictions. Most of the time the budget is tied to that as well. In fact most police run labs aren't even accredited.

Until the crime lab is an independent fixture of the state that both the prosecution and defense can use it's going to be a problem.

Re:Must-see Frontline

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation? People should keep in mind that you don't know what you're talking about.

I work at a forensic lab that's nominally under the budgetary authority of a police agency, so I speak from personal experience when I say that I've never seen a case where anyone has been "cherry picking what tests they are going to run to suit the needs presupposed by the authorities".
We generally don't have a wide range of tests to chose from in any given scenario. They tell us what they suspect is present and we tell them if that's possible or impossible.

I've also never seen even an inkling of pressure as to what conclusions to be drawn by lab management. We also go out of our way to offer equal time and access to defense teams and experts, even though they're often actively hostile. It's true that we work with the police and prosecution more often than not, but that's a structural artifact that arises from the fact that there's usually no defense team once we find evidence that contradicts the prosecutions case since charges are usually dropped. We do post-conviction testing when it's requested without prejudice.

Lab management don't care the slightest bit about convictions and usually don't pay any attention to cases after we've testified. As far as I know, budgets are tied most closely to case output and backlogs. I don't think anyone even tracks convictions at our lab, much less ties them to budgets.

As for accreditation, I can conclusively say you're wrong, as any lab that lacks ISO 17025 accreditation from an external accreditation body is not allowed access to CODIS by the FBI, making DNA nearly useless. That's on top of annual internal audits and FBI audits.

If you actually have recent personal experience to back up your statements, it has to be from somewhere outside the USA or some bizarre world lab. It sounds like you're describing the state of affairs 20 years ago or more.

I actually agree that labs should be under independent authority, but only to avoid the appearance of impropriety rather than any evidence of actual issues.

Forensic liars

[girlintraining]

The problem with forensic science is that it's less a science and more an art. Take identifying the flash point of a fire for example -- it's not as easy as people say or suspect. For years, "scientists" would point to certain fracture patterns or scorching marks and say that was the source, but there was never any studies done on it. It was mostly speculation, compounded by experience. Without any feedback on whether they were actually right or wrong, they developed a false sense of confidence. And in court, confidence + authority = conviction.

The problem is that the legal system doesn't use scientific standards, it uses legal standards. And the law is based on experience -- it is forever looking backwards. A precident set 200 years ago is just as applicable in a court today as it was in the intervening years. Science, on the other hand, only considers the most current understanding relevant. And that's where the problems start. The law says that once a kind of forensic examination carries legal weight, then even if it is later conclusively proven scientifically to be false, it does not overturn past convictions, nor does it prevent its use in the present.

Our justice system is not about fairness or justice -- it is about maintaining public perception of order, which is a separate and distinct concept. It can be quite orderly and efficient to never allow a new trial for the convicted... it is not necessarily fair.

Re:Forensic liars

[jomegat]

An ex-attorney friend of mine once observed, "We do not have a justice system. We have a legal system." It's an important thing to remember.

Re:Forensic liars

[pepty]

There is lots of science and studies behind investigating fires. Perhaps you are confused between something you saw on a movie and something you heard in real life.

Probably he was confused between real life and real life in Texas, which probably executed an innocent man (Cameron Willingham) in 2004 based on old standards for point of origin and use of accelerants evidence.

Re:What needs reform is..

[Sooner Boomer]

Too often the forensic office is friends with and/or pressured by the police or DA to get results.

More likely they are willing to do whatever they can to "fight crime". As an example, I give you the case of Joyce Gilcrist. From the Wilipedia entry

"Joyce Gilchrist is a former forensic chemist who had participated in over 3,000 criminal cases in 21 years while working for the Oklahoma City police department, and who was accused of falsifying evidence. Her evidence led in part to 23 people being sentenced to death, 11 of whom have been executed."

We'll never know how many of those 3000 were actually innocent, while the guilty walked free. She should have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder through depraved indifference, but that's just my opinion.