Forensic science needs ‘major overhaul’
A report which heavily criticizes the way forensic evidence is used in the legal system could spark a barrage of appeals against verdicts. It’s claimed that, besides DNA, most scientific evidence is not reliable enough to identify individuals conclusively.
The National Academy of Sciences has been investigating America’s crime labs for two years. It concluded that systems for regulating and accrediting forensic scientists are inadequate, and that there are no clear and effective guidelines for analyzing evidence.
The report also says that DNA evidence is the only forensic method with a proven reliability; other than this nothing “has been rigorously shown able to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source.”
According to the report, even commonly accepted forensic methods may be fallible. It rejects the belief that fingerprint analysis has a “zero error rate,” arguing that even though individual fingerprints are unique, they may still be similar enough to be confused. That’s because analysis is still subjective and prone to human error.
The report says many forensic technologies such as hair analysis have a role to play, but only as a tool for narrowing a field of suspects and tracking down the offender. Such evidence is not necessarily conclusive enough to identify an individual to the degree of certainty needed for a fair conviction.
The authors also called for greater clarity and consistency in the ways forensic scientists describe their findings to juries and for them to do a better job of highlighting the limits of their techniques when giving evidence.
The Academy stresses, “The report offers no judgment about past convictions or pending cases, and it offers no view as to whether the courts should reassess cases that already have been tried.” But Barry Scheck, co-founder of a group campaigning to overturn wrongful convictions, told the Los Angeles Times it was “a major turning point in the history of forensic science in America” and predicted imminent court challenges.
Related Posts:
