The Informant

(Page 7)

By Todd Curran

Next time you watch a crime-scene investigation show on television, you may want to take their Hollywood high-tech analysis with a grain of salt. C.S.I. could be a lot of B.S.

Jurors routinely afford confident scientific experts an infallibility because they evoke the bold characters from crime dramas. The real world of forensic science, however, is far different. Forensic labs are overburdened, understaffed and under intense pressure from prosecutors to produce results. According to a 2005 study by the Department of Justice, the average lab has a backlog of 401 requests for services. Plus, several forensic departments have been racked by scandals involving mishandled evidence and outright fraud. Beyond those problems, the real issue with forensic “science” lies in its basic validity.

“There is no scientific foundation for it,” says Arizona State University law professor Michael Saks. According to the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, no advanced degree is required for a career in forensics. And even the most experienced and respected professionals can come to inaccurate conclusions because the research behind most forensic sciences is incomplete and the established methodologies are often inexact.

One of the world's most prestigious scientific organizations, The National Academy of Sciences, has analyzed the field of forensic science and found it deeply flawed. A 5-4 majority in the U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the work of crime labs is not infallible and defendants have a right to make that clear.

Analyses of hair, bite marks, fibers, documents, tools, firearms, shoe impressions, tire tracks, handwriting and blood spatters can help focus an investigation but can seldom provide infallible evidence of guilt. Even fingerprint analysis depends on a subjective judgment by experts as to how closely two prints match, as examiners have sometimes disagreed with their own past conclusions when viewing the same prints later.

In a report from the National Academy of Sciences it was stated that “apart from DNA, there is not a single forensic discipline that has been proven 'with a high degree of certainty' to be able to match a piece of evidence to a suspect.” As a result of junk science, many innocent people have been wrongfully jailed while the true perpetrators roam free to commit more crimes.

Since in nearly half of the 240 DNA exonerations, faulty forensic science was a contributory factor to the wrongful convictions, the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief hoping to nudge the Supreme Court towards recognizing that forensic evidence is commonly exaggerated or distorted. The Innocence Project cautiously declared the Court ruling a step forward, not a solution to forensic science's underlying problems.

In a statement, Innocence Project Co-Director Peter Neufeld said, “The Court said our criminal justice system can't rely blindly on forensic analysts' reports because they may distort results to favour the prosecution, or they may place too much value on forensic disciplines that have not been subjected to scientific rigor.”

Simply put, forensic science doesn't work because it isn't a science at all. It was developed by law enforcement trying to apprehend criminals based on patterns from previous cases. Despite the absence of scientific method or testing, the methods were accepted and implemented for years. Policy makers and the public trust too much in methods they've been convinced are valid, when forensic procedures actually lack set standards and “expert” opinions tend to vary.