In his article, Dutelle (2008) details the subjective errors of omissions, false misrepresentation among other mistakes that are made knowingly or inadvertently by forensic investigators. The investigative processes involved in solving a criminal act possessing the presence of evidence through application of forensic science, he opines, can lead to wrong conclusion that has a ripple effect of wrong justice being meted out by the legal system on innocent individuals that relies on such. His article brings to the fore the issue of professional ethics in this field of science.
Firstly, identifying the perpetrator as a step in the evidentiary process can be compromised through forensic science application. This is due to the likelihood of the …show more content…
This reporting involves giving a testimony in a court of law. According to data (Virginia Law Review, 2009), there have been cases whereby reporting of false misrepresentation of outcomes by the forensic experts in courts of law without prior trials or analysis has led to wrongful convictions. This is a situation, Dutelle refers to as drylabbing. Forensic experts in contrast to attorneys are obligated under oath to exercise honesty in their reporting on forensic evidence so as to not to lead either the jury or defense astray so as to secure a conviction. This therefore necessitates a need to have them ascribe to ethical values and be regulated by a professional body of forensic expert …show more content…
This is due to the likelihood of the evidence being discreetly placed or tampered with at the crime scene by persons of interest with the sole purpose of misleading the investigation. For example, the wrongful conviction of Gerard Richardson for 19 years by the state of New Jersey, where forensic experts wrongfully matched the bites mark in the victim’s neck to his teeth. As such, it portrays how misrepresented, and misleading forensic identification of evidence can lead to wrongful incarceration of a defendant. This also puts into question forensic techniques of identification of crime perpetrators utilizing DNA samples of individuals in a national database; basing on the discrepancies arising in varied lab practices a mismatch might occur pinning an innocent individual to a heinous crime like
Firstly, identifying the perpetrator as a step in the evidentiary process can be compromised through forensic science application. This is due to the likelihood of the …show more content…
This reporting involves giving a testimony in a court of law. According to data (Virginia Law Review, 2009), there have been cases whereby reporting of false misrepresentation of outcomes by the forensic experts in courts of law without prior trials or analysis has led to wrongful convictions. This is a situation, Dutelle refers to as drylabbing. Forensic experts in contrast to attorneys are obligated under oath to exercise honesty in their reporting on forensic evidence so as to not to lead either the jury or defense astray so as to secure a conviction. This therefore necessitates a need to have them ascribe to ethical values and be regulated by a professional body of forensic expert …show more content…
This is due to the likelihood of the evidence being discreetly placed or tampered with at the crime scene by persons of interest with the sole purpose of misleading the investigation. For example, the wrongful conviction of Gerard Richardson for 19 years by the state of New Jersey, where forensic experts wrongfully matched the bites mark in the victim’s neck to his teeth. As such, it portrays how misrepresented, and misleading forensic identification of evidence can lead to wrongful incarceration of a defendant. This also puts into question forensic techniques of identification of crime perpetrators utilizing DNA samples of individuals in a national database; basing on the discrepancies arising in varied lab practices a mismatch might occur pinning an innocent individual to a heinous crime like