The Dazzling Effect of Forensics in Court

Television series such as CSI and Bones have expanded the popularity of forensic evidence over the past decade. Such series often focus on forensics as being the key to finding criminals. The forensic techniques used in such series yield such accurate results. The truth is that forensics often does not yield decisive and accurate results. Forensic science is prone to errors, mistakes and inaccuracies. Over the past several years over 200 people have had their convictions overturned, in which approximately 50% of such cases the overturning of the conviction was based on bad forensic analysis (Brad Reagan, Popular Mechanics, August 2009). There is an ever growing list of individuals who have been wrongfully convicted because of erroneous forensic analysis.

Wrongful convictions occur because jurors put too much weight on scientific experts; it is almost as if they believe their evidence is infallible because of what jurors have seen on television on series such as CSI. It is known as the “CSI effect” because on such television series, forensics experts are never wrong and they yield instant results. Where as in reality, forensic labs are overburdened, understaffed and under intense pressure to deliver accurate results.

Many critics have even called the science behind the forensic part as resting on shaky ground. A vast amount of well established forms of evidence are the result of subjective analysis by individuals with minimum training. There is really no science involved. For example, in Canada, the forensics labs are anchored by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.). The forensic analysts are hired directly by the RCMP who monitor and host the national forensic database. It is trained police officers who collect the forensic evidence, not individual forensic experts who are called in. All of the forensic work is done by the police themselves. Bite marks, blood spatter patterns, ballistics, fingerprinting and hair, fiber and handwriting analysis are all done by the police internally. It is also important to note that these forensic police officers do not have specialty degrees but are instead chosen to be members of the forensic unit after working as a patrol member for several years (usually six years). Candidates are then required to go through a three year apprenticeship and 2 exams.

An example of a faulty forensic science is fingerprint analysis. As recent studies suggest that “friction ridge analysis” which is central to fingerprint identification has no statistically valid model (Brad Reagan, Popular Mechanics,August 2009). While fingerprints may be unique, not having a statistically valid model of analyzing them can produce inaccurate results. Yet when it comes to testifying in court, fingerprint analysts testify as if they are absolutely certain of their results. For example, in a 2006 study conducted at the University of Southampton, six veteran fingerprint experts were asked to re-examine fingerprints they had already examined without knowing that they were examining the same fingerprints and only two of them came up with the same conclusion as the first analysis (Brad Reagan, Popular Mechanics, August 2009). Clearly, fingerprint analysis is not an accurate science to say the least.

Not all forensic sciences are faulty. Academics believe that forensic techniques that grew out of organic chemistry and microbiology have a strong scientific foundation. Chromatography and DNA are examples of such sciences that are fairly accurate (Brad Reagan, Popular Mechanics, August 2009). These sciences developed over long periods of time where as the not so good forensic sciences are fairly new, yet they are still being used in court. Fingerprint and ballistic evidence has been around for a while, yet such evidence should be considered with caution as such sciences are still prone to mistakes. Bite marks, foot prints, tire tracks, handwriting, and blood stain analysis all suffer from confounding variables and as a result, such evidence should be considered with caution. Only time will make forensic science into an actual accurate science that could be used in court. However, nobody really knows when and how forensic science will become accurate so there are no more wrongful convictions.

The moral of the story is that forensic science is not accurate. When considering it in court, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Even though forensic science has come a long way from the ‘good old days’, it is still not infallible. All evidence should be weighed; keeping in mind that forensic science on television is different from reality, and that forensic science is not perfect. We don’t need any more wrongful convictions in society!