Professor Sue Black’s comments are short but extremely relevant. She should be commended for speaking of her personal experience.
I suggest that forensic training courses and academic programs should recognize the subject of forensic-related PTSD prevention and treatment in their curricula.
The CSI glamorization of forensic experience is surely a myth.
Here is the keynote speaker ( Jo Handlesman Ph.D) at a 2015 NIJ conference on forensic science speaking about the unenviable position bitemarkers have attained by showing no reliability in their opinions and being individually inconsistent in their courtroom testimony. Her expectations are that forensic indentification of individuals and specimens be derived from “hard scientific methods.”
Image from a prosecution’s bitemark expert. All it shows are common dental features.
Overstated forensic science opinions can lead suspects into false confession. This Irish Times article gives this an overview and covers Itiel Dror’s decades long work examining how prosecutorial enthusiasm effects police run crime labs.
(excerpt)
According to Dror, one of the biggest problems is that forensic evidence is usually treated in court as beyond reproach and frequently not even challenged by the defence. It is so powerful it can force defendants to plead guilty in the hope of a lesser sentence, even if they are innocent.
“Often forensic examiners overstate the evidence and they rarely present the limitations and uncertainty.
“Every science has uncertainties, but they forget their role.”
A soon to be published law review.pdf article by Valena Beety (WVA School of Law and director of the WVA Innocence Project), describes in detail why “Cops in Lab Coats” correctly lobbies for independent crime labs to prevent wrongful convictions. The full book title is Cops in Lab Coats and Forensics in the Courtroom and is written by Sandra Guerra Thompson.
Title: “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit”
This is a decidedly serious discussion on the soft belly of science and other expertism that is largely uncontrolled by peer review. It may join the continuum Peter W. Huber’s book “Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom” and critical papers on the subject.
Don’t think forensic science is immune.
This money ( being in UK currency} makes it way larger than any single university US program funding by a power of about 30. The US NIJ should wake up and pay attention. This is a much better investment than some of the peanut sized grants offered on this side of the pond.
Descriptive but not an over enthusiastic prediction of a novel attempt to revolutionize the future of “fighting crime.” The writer properly spells out the commercially developed DNA method as “skimpy” on validity.
“In truth, the science for conjuring a person’s appearance from DNA remains a little skimpy. Facial features may be shaped by hundreds or thousands of genes — each with very tiny effects.”
A police agency in FLA has spent $4500 on a composite sketch.
The above photo is from a recent exoneration case from North Carolina. The joy on Dwayne Dail’s face is palpable.
You probably won’t often see this discussion on TV , but people are really upset about wrongful convictions occurring on a daily/weekly basis in the news. They want to know why and how this happens. At some level at least. Sometimes it is a personal concern, and other times they are vocal advocates of forensic science and legal reforms. These concerns end up in the media which then give us glimpses into the turmoil occurring within the criminal justice system. Hence the local media slap at the NC crime lab two days ago.
Backroom battles of forensic reform
Journalists/bloggers/reformers taking on these subjects get accused of being “soft on crime” when narrating and opinionating (sic) about the innocent (mostly men and a few women) spending decades in prison. This being the age of public invective and instant polarization of conflicting opinion makers in the US criminal justice system means forensic science reform attracts alot of heat as well.
Forensic people raising concerns get shunned, ridiculed and fired. Forensic science trolls preach that there is a conspiracy known as the Innocence Project making money via releasing criminals back into society (don’t ask me to explain how THAT works, as I cannot). These types are so misinformed that they won’t read that almost a third of the IPs’ cases have led law enforcement to actual murderers and rapists.
The public flashback by forensic science people in North Carolina to a local newspaper’s criticism was the subject of my previous blog. The paper actually did a well-balanced presentation. Yet it mentioned lingering concerns.
What the forensic lab’s response missed was acknowledgement of what is happening in the media about their forensic kingdom. They sound righteously indignant. They also completely missed the context of what the public is worried about. Hence journalists and editorialists are concerned as well. A short list of links to NC forensic happenings is at the end of this blog.
The broader issue is innocent people being convicted.
Crime lab miscues and omissions giving inaccurate or overstated results have been proven to eventually lead to wrongful convictions. As of now, the general public cannot identify the “good guys” in the forensic business from their “lesser trustworthy” forensic counterparts.
They do read about how long it has taken the US prosecutorial legal system to accept there are problems with thousands of cases and how difficult it is to procedurally rectify a defendant’s freedom rights which have been diminished and or actually extinguished by forensic mistakes.
Its not the time to go all Donald Trump on the public’s concerns about police forensic labs. It is legitimate and should NOT be demonized.
Reference List
North Carolina exoneration history, activities and crime lab problems in the local media.
North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence recent exonerations
North Carolina Innocence Statutes and Compensation
Crime labs’ reputations and credibility questions continue to be deliberated in the US and the international press.
Writers seldom have substantial knowledge of forensic science, but they have little problem using data from FOIA demands and other public information to energize doubts about current forensic practices. The leaders of the North Carolina crime lab are posing a critique of a news report casting doubts in their direction. They have the challenge of acknowledging past misdeeds, (none leading to wrongful convictions), while explaining substantial improvements.
They might start taking a consistent higher profile in publishing these accomplishments.
“First, you apply the word “corrupt” to the lab. Not only is this deeply offensive to hundreds of dedicated, hard-working and honest laboratory workers, but it is entirely false.”
“Contrary to your version of events, the N.C. Department of Justice initiated an independent audit of the lab which concluded with an August 2010, report. This Report makes clear that the “16 years” mentioned in your editorial ended in 2003, 12 years ago. The report emphasized that “no issues were identified . that would call into question the proficiency of analysts, quality control protocols or the adequacy of the testing procedures,” and that “no one should conclude that someone has been wrongfully convicted.”
Some dentist named Bowers.
Also, kudos to USC Ostrow Professors Nan Mulligan and Glenn Clark for funding the USC Special Patients Clinic in perpetuity.
Fight On. Beat Stanford.
