All of the above concerns regarding forensic testimony presents a significant problem in our courtrooms where the negligent action be extremely high. Juries give undue attention to the testimony presented by forensic scientists and the above issues can pose a significant threat to the resulting judgment. Any ethical forensic examiner would not mislead the courtroom but as depicted above, this is certainly not the case.
Thompson & Dioso-Villa (2008) argue that many areas of forensic science are under-researched and given undue power to their reliability, in which forensic scientists have used these techniques and presented results in the courtroom in a careless manner. They present an example of the case, Robin Lovitt v. Commonwealth of Virginia, where forensic evidence linked Lovitt directly to the crime. "Forensic investigators found DNA consistent with Lovitt on the murder weapon, while they also found victim's blood on Lovitt's jacket" (Thompson & Dioso-Villa, 2008). These DNA tests are not precise, however based on the forensic testimony on this evidence, juror decisions were highly influenced by this testimony. "The DNA tests on the jacket were 'inconclusive,' but the location of the blood fit neatly with the prosecution's …show more content…
But one can conclude from this case, how unnatural it is to treat forensic science and law as separate individuals, who both contributed equally to the miscarriage of justice and cannot be counted as separate entities. (Cole, 2012). This illustrates that these problems are not just limited to forensic science and blaming them for the miscarriages of justices but rather one should also be looking at the broader picture and questioning the experts and officials who are testifying under these
Thompson & Dioso-Villa (2008) argue that many areas of forensic science are under-researched and given undue power to their reliability, in which forensic scientists have used these techniques and presented results in the courtroom in a careless manner. They present an example of the case, Robin Lovitt v. Commonwealth of Virginia, where forensic evidence linked Lovitt directly to the crime. "Forensic investigators found DNA consistent with Lovitt on the murder weapon, while they also found victim's blood on Lovitt's jacket" (Thompson & Dioso-Villa, 2008). These DNA tests are not precise, however based on the forensic testimony on this evidence, juror decisions were highly influenced by this testimony. "The DNA tests on the jacket were 'inconclusive,' but the location of the blood fit neatly with the prosecution's …show more content…
But one can conclude from this case, how unnatural it is to treat forensic science and law as separate individuals, who both contributed equally to the miscarriage of justice and cannot be counted as separate entities. (Cole, 2012). This illustrates that these problems are not just limited to forensic science and blaming them for the miscarriages of justices but rather one should also be looking at the broader picture and questioning the experts and officials who are testifying under these