Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2013 | Page 63

STEVENSON UNIVERSITY

tiful on CSI-like television shows as everyone is using their unique,
specialized talents to collectively prove the home team theory and
catch the bad guy. Bias threatens the justice process because it is often
systemic or organizational and can exist at all levels of the criminal
investigation culminating in a wrongful conviction based on biased
information and procedures (Thompson, W. C., p. 1029).

incompatible with law enforcement goals is profound and is, “perhaps
its most significant contribution to the future of the forensic science
community” (Turvey, 2009, p. 6). This recommendation is not a
complete solution to the problem of bias; however, it can be a catalyst
for the crucial cultural change necessary for scientific principles to
more fully govern crime labs.

Pro-prosecution bias can be rooted in the powerful incentives inherent to the organization of crime labs. As stated earlier, many forensic
examiners are former police officers or FBI agents who think of
themselves as police in lab coats and perform their duties accordingly
(DiFonzo & Stern, p. 515). Similar to the role of police and investigators, forensic analysts can ostensibly perform their duties while
building a scientific case supportive of theories or suspects and suppressing evidence to the contrary. The desire of the forensic scientist
to please the prosecutor is the most common explanation offered for
forensic fraud (Salecl, p. 897).

Recommendation Five tasks the NIFS with fostering research efforts
on errors in forensic endeavors and the role of bias in forensic science.
After such research is complete, NIFS will be further tasked with
creating standard operating procedures designed to minimize both
bias and error (National Research Council, p. 24). The aim of this
Recommendation is to substantiate well-known academic claims that
all forms of bias can result in fraud and error in forensic workplaces.
By acknowledging this fact, the work of standardizing best practices
for dissemination can begin. Additionally, Recommendation Five
works in concert with Recommendations Seven and Eight that call
for mandatory lab accreditation, individual certification of forensic
professionals and the implementation of routine quality assurance and
control procedures designed to detect fraud and error, respectively
(National Research Council, p. 26).

REFORMS
In 2005, a spate of highly publicized crime lab scandals involving
forensic fraud and error prompted repeated appeals for federal intervention to reform the nation’s forensic science systems. Congress
authorized the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a
study entitled “Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community” to be undertaken by a committee of professionals from the
law and forensic science community as well as supporting scientific
disciplines (National Research Council, p. 2). The final report
released by the committee in 2009, titled “Strengthening Forensic
Science in the United States: A Path Forward” represented exhaustive
months of research and analysis culminating in the most extensive
report on forensics to date, outlining thirteen Recommendations to
shape the future of forensic science and address current problems
(National Research Council, p. 4-5). Six Recommendations are pertinent to reducing the incidences of forensic fraud and error and will be
assessed further here.

Lastly, NAS Recommendation Eleven seeks to replace existing coroner
systems with NIFS accredited medical examiner systems. In addition,
funding would be expressly designated for improving medicolegal
death investigations (National Research Council, p. 30). This Recommendation, would entrust the sanctity of death investigations to
forensic science and medicine versus local politics and tradition.
The thirteen NAS Recommendations are broad and complex, perhaps
to the point of rendering them too massive and expensive to implement. The perception that the NIFS will be just another inefficient,
slow federal government bureaucracy is an obstacle to NAS’s proposed
reforms. Other leaders from the forensic community differ with the
NAS or offer their own insights and strategies to combat forensic
fraud and error.

Recommendation One proposes the creation of an independent
federal entity, the National Institute of Forensic Science, (NIFS) to
oversee further development of all forensic science disciplines. This
organization would be grounded in science instead of law, operating with skilled leaders who can unify competing voices within the
forensic community and promote the interests of all the ɕ