Forensic Science for Criminal Convictions? - A Research Report

I just want to start off by saying that yes!! I wrote this!! Originally it was for a school assignment, but I never ended up submitting it, so here it is now! I didn’t know what forensic science was, and I got “forensic psychologist” as a top career choice in a small career test I did, so I got curious and researched. Anyway, hope you like this silly this read 💕 (also sorry if u get offended as a forensic scientist LOL no offence intended, the whole thing is just me being as objective as possible…maybe.)

Forensic science is generally defined as science applied to uphold laws, including civil laws and criminal laws. Typically, forensic science includes collecting biological evidence at the crime scene, including but not exclusive to DNA samples through blood stains, skeletal remains, fingerprints, bite marks, and the murder victim’s stage of death (livor mortis/ rigor mortis). Forensic experts will then analyse this evidence, which can help determine the victim’s identity, when they have been killed or who has been at the crime scene, therefore gathering footage or eyewitness testimonies to locate and identify the murderer.

Forensic science dates back to ancient civilisations such as pathology in ancient China or Greece. It has become more mainstream in recent years due to television shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and is currently being implemented in numerous countries worldwide (United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands…), providing evidence that plays a key role in legal prosecutions. Following the popularisation of forensic science, numerous board and international organisations have formed and endorsed forensic science, such as The International Forensic Strategic Alliance (IFSA), setting global standards and policies for future development in this field.

Here’s the issue: as much as forensic science can help identify perpetrators, there have been cases in which it has led to wrongful convictions of the innocent or uninvolved. In the United States alone, 732 wrongful convictions were classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence,” and according to the Innocence Project, an international organisation aimed at exonerating the innocent, over half of the wrongful convictions were due to misapplication in forensic science. As such, this report aims to conclude whether forensic science can be a reliable source of evidence in court and whether it does more harm than good.

Evaluation of Sources

First, I extracted information from a study entitled “Wrongful Convictions and Claims of False or Misleading Forensic Evidence”, which is part of the “Journal of Forensic Science”, published by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, an organisation with over 6.000 members representing 50 United States and 71 other countries. Not only was this study authored by PhD holder and research consultant of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), John Morgan, but it was also officially supported by the NIJ itself. The author being an authority and the study being endorsed by an official governmental institution makes it more credible. Furthermore, this study doesn’t aim to criticise the use of forensic science, but rather to analyse the root causes of error and provide a basis for further development, showcasing its neutral and unbiased nature, making it suitable for this research report.

Next, to gain an understanding of how forensic science is generally perceived worldwide, I extracted information from a survey conducted as part of a PhD research, where the first author was granted the Australian Postgraduate Award by the University of Canberra. This survey was conducted across 20 different countries, meaning it has a large database, making its results more accurate and reliable.

To find out more about cases where forensic science has led to injustice, I used Forensic (FOR), which claims to be the #1 leading source for the latest news and updates in forensic science. While this is a striking claim with little evidence, the articles published are informative and authored by reliable experts. These articles provide global, local and individual perspectives on each case, showing its willingness to consider all sides and its lack of bias.

I have also used several official government websites such as The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), where the information stated are direct statements from their respective governments to ensure the source is credible for retrieving an accurate national stance, and scourged the official websites of several organisations, most notably the Innocence Project, which is a nonprofit organization, which means it does not have vested interest of any kind.

Causes of Unreliable Forensics

[Fig. 1.1, trends in DNA testing of forensic cases] 

Inaccuracies may occur during testing and analysis, especially if the forensic lab lacks the necessary resources and uses outdated technology. I have found this to be an issue in the United States, with evidence from 2019 showing multiple crime labs faced with case backlogs, leading to strained resources. According to the Associated Press, Tennessee’s three state labs averaged from 28 to 49 weeks to process rape kits, and more than 950 rape kit requests were pending in labs (August 2022). Unfortunately, as Fig. 1.1 suggests, the number of backlogged cases will only continue to increase.

Accurate and reliable evidence also relies heavily on the reliability of scientists and court officers, as corruption may lead to them withholding certain evidence or malleating certain information to avoid penalties. One example of this is the New Jersey Drunk Drive Testing incident, occurring in 2018, whereby over 20,000 people were wrongly tested and convicted for drunk driving. This was due to a coordinator in New Jersey State Police’s Alcohol Drug Testing Unit, Marc W. Dennis, falsely claiming the necessary calibrations on Alchotest instruments had been done.

[Fig. 1.2, a survey by 544 forensic scientists across 20 countries]

As Fig. 1.2 suggests, particularly in Q.31 and Q.49, forensic expert testimonies or their judgment based on their level of qualifications are deemed to be relatively important by fellow experts across many countries worldwide. This survey shows that experts globally heavily influence the validity of forensic evidence and consequently the success rate of crime convictions. Being authorities in this field, their opinions likely stem from their respective experiences in the field, as they may have experienced false testimonies from their peers and witnessed several wrongful convictions for themselves, making their stance more credible. However, Fig. 1.2 simultaneously shows that forensic experts worldwide generally have a positive outlook on the current implementation of forensic science and believe in its validity and reliability. Their opinions may be because they believe in their field of expertise after practising it for a long time.

Furthermore, the idea that every individual’s fingerprints are unique is only an assumption and has not been substantially proven. Supposedly expert analysts have yet to agree on a fixed way to determine the similarities between different prints, and measurement standards vary vastly based on where it is being tested. Hence, the varying results mean that identifying culprits by fingerprinting is unreliable. To further prove this case, Simon Cole, chief constable of the Leicestershire Police, stated that “at least 23 people in the United States have been wrongly connected to crime-scene prints”. Representing the local police district in England, his statement shows how he is strictly against the use of fingerprinting to identify perpetrators, believing it is unreliable. This is a valid opinion as it stems directly from witnessing injustice due to fingerprinting, and he also has substantial knowledge of the history and impact of fingerprinting in court cases, having written and published a journal article in Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Despite evidence pooled against the reliability of using fingerprinting to identify perpetrators, the method is still rarely questioned in court, which serves as a global problem as this can increase the number of wrongful convictions.

Additionally, although the implementation of DNA samples in forensic science over the last 39 years has played a large role in correctly identifying crime perpetrators and exonerating the innocent, it is easily transferred, even if the owner of said DNA is absent from the crime scene. This can lead to connections between the crime case and people who are uninvolved with the crime. As the number of unrelated people called in as suspects increases, the risk of wrongful convictions also increases.

The Innocence Project, an international organisation aimed at exonerating the innocent, is not exactly for or against the use of forensic science, but rather standing on middle ground. This is because while they have seen many cases of its misapplication leading to many wrongful convictions, it also uses post-conviction DNA evidence, which is a form of forensic science to help exonerate said people. One example is the incident of Keith Allen Harward, who was wrongly identified as the perpetrator of murder by 6 forensic dentists, serving 34 years in prison due to wrongful conviction, and was later exonerated by post-conviction DNA evidence collected by the Innocence Project.

Effects of Unreliable Forensics

The main consequence of unreliable forensics is wrongful convictions, whereby innocent people are imprisoned. This is an ethical dilemma concerning human rights because imprisonment means taking away the freedom of people. The documentary, Making a Murder, highlights a case where a man from Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, Steven Avery spent nearly 18 years in prison for rape, a crime he did not commit. Other documentaries like Exhibit A and Innocence Files also present forensic science unfavourably, criticising it by presenting cases in which it has led to wrongful convictions.

As previously mentioned, one cause for unreliable forensics is case backlogs. This will result in delayed identifications of perpetrators, allowing them to roam free while the innocent are endangered. An example of this is the Eliza Fletcher case, where case backlogs resulted in her perpetrator being tested nearly a year later, allowing him to roam free while she was murdered.

Both wrongful convictions and delayed convictions are examples of unsuccessful prosecutions, which lead to dwindling public trust in their respective justice systems. This can serve as a problem because it can strain police-community relations and cause community disunification, leading to riots and protests which can become violent.

Conclusions and Reflections

In conclusion, forensic science in compiling evidence for crime cases is currently inevitable, and we are still heavily dependent on it. While it has led to numerous wrongful convictions, with the continued development of DNA analysis and proper equipment being employed in laboratories, forensic science has the potential to be a reliable and formidable tool for successful convictions.