Forensics on trial describes the techniques that have been used in forensic science that have shown faults, or as NOVA’s “Forensics on Trial” stated, “there’s not enough science in forensic science.” There are many types of evidence that have to be analyzed, such as bite mark and foot print impressions, fingerprints, and many more. As types of evidence rise more techniques are required to analyze them, and the objective of “Forensics on Trial” is how to ensure a flawless system.
The part of forensics that is on trial is the science that does not seem to give enough results, which is most often the fault of human error. In order to fix this, there needs to be more concrete standards and procedures for analyzing techniques as stated in “Forensics …show more content…
The criminal justice system works together in many branches such as police, forensic scientists, and jurors. This was illustrated “Forensics on Trial” in the O.J. Simpson case, when police officers ruined evidence that could have incriminated O.J. and made it impossible to convict him. But forensic scientists themselves have also given forensic science a bad rap. For example, bite mark evidence can be very useful, but when Sabina Kulakowski from “Forensics on Trial” was examined for her bite marks the wrong person was convicted. The forensic scientist that examined her bite marks and noticed there was one hole in the bruise, and the man convicted was not just missing one tooth, but two. Therefore there should have been two missing parts in the bruise, but the forensic scientist inferred that the suspect moved his mouth which created only one hole. The inference that the forensic scientist made convicted an innocent man for the murder Sabina Kulakowski, and he spent twelve years in jail for a crime he did not commit. Forensic science needs more structured science behind it, and jurors need to realize that any science relies on human discretion which is not foolproof.
The forensic system could always use new techniques and improvements, but the science behind forensics is not the problem, it is the human error behind it. We need stronger standards for the analysis of evidence or an accreditation process. For example, as “Forensics on Trial” stated, “Forensic science bite mark evidence is more of an art than it is a
The part of forensics that is on trial is the science that does not seem to give enough results, which is most often the fault of human error. In order to fix this, there needs to be more concrete standards and procedures for analyzing techniques as stated in “Forensics …show more content…
The criminal justice system works together in many branches such as police, forensic scientists, and jurors. This was illustrated “Forensics on Trial” in the O.J. Simpson case, when police officers ruined evidence that could have incriminated O.J. and made it impossible to convict him. But forensic scientists themselves have also given forensic science a bad rap. For example, bite mark evidence can be very useful, but when Sabina Kulakowski from “Forensics on Trial” was examined for her bite marks the wrong person was convicted. The forensic scientist that examined her bite marks and noticed there was one hole in the bruise, and the man convicted was not just missing one tooth, but two. Therefore there should have been two missing parts in the bruise, but the forensic scientist inferred that the suspect moved his mouth which created only one hole. The inference that the forensic scientist made convicted an innocent man for the murder Sabina Kulakowski, and he spent twelve years in jail for a crime he did not commit. Forensic science needs more structured science behind it, and jurors need to realize that any science relies on human discretion which is not foolproof.
The forensic system could always use new techniques and improvements, but the science behind forensics is not the problem, it is the human error behind it. We need stronger standards for the analysis of evidence or an accreditation process. For example, as “Forensics on Trial” stated, “Forensic science bite mark evidence is more of an art than it is a