Forensic Analysis: Art or Science? Forensic analysis (often referred to as forensic science) is the application of science to legal matters and crime solving chemistry. There are many issues regarding this “science,” such as whether it is a “science” at all. Forensic analysis is more of an art than a science. There are many scientific methods and procedures involved with forensic analysis, but with the somewhat large possibility of human error affecting the results, and considering the implications of an incorrect conclusion, such as false imprisonment, how could one, with a sufficient amount of confidence, call it a “science?” Most current forensic technologies have not been scientifically validated, per galegroup.com, but the real question
…show more content…
If there is the possibility of a human misinterpreting the results of any given test, leading to the wrong conclusion in a court of law, thus falsely imprisoning an individual, that is not science. Not all forensic analysis is backed up by sufficient scientific research. Fingerprint analysis is a good example as pbs.org states in a Frontline report, “fingerprints can lie,” despite what criminologists and law enforcement officials have been attesting to for years – that it is always possible to trace a print back to one single person. Recent errors have backed up the statement that fingerprints can indeed, lie, such as the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, Spain that killed almost 200 people. A partial print on a bag of detonators was linked to Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield by a total of four fingerprint examiners – including one from Mayfield’s own defense team. There was just one issue – the print did not in fact belong to Brandon Mayfield. Spanish officials matched the print to an Algerian man named Daoud Ouhnane, after which Mayfield sued the government for $2 million. Astoundingly, despite fingerprinting being a widely accepted practice in law enforcement and the courts, according to the National Academies of Sciences, no peer reviewed scientific studies have ever been done to prove that every person’s fingerprint is unique. Another controversial forensic technique is bite-mark comparison. The lack of scientific research backing up bite mark comparisons has played a role in many wrongful convictions over the years according to attorneys from The Innocence Project. However, not all forensic techniques are
If there is the possibility of a human misinterpreting the results of any given test, leading to the wrong conclusion in a court of law, thus falsely imprisoning an individual, that is not science. Not all forensic analysis is backed up by sufficient scientific research. Fingerprint analysis is a good example as pbs.org states in a Frontline report, “fingerprints can lie,” despite what criminologists and law enforcement officials have been attesting to for years – that it is always possible to trace a print back to one single person. Recent errors have backed up the statement that fingerprints can indeed, lie, such as the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, Spain that killed almost 200 people. A partial print on a bag of detonators was linked to Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield by a total of four fingerprint examiners – including one from Mayfield’s own defense team. There was just one issue – the print did not in fact belong to Brandon Mayfield. Spanish officials matched the print to an Algerian man named Daoud Ouhnane, after which Mayfield sued the government for $2 million. Astoundingly, despite fingerprinting being a widely accepted practice in law enforcement and the courts, according to the National Academies of Sciences, no peer reviewed scientific studies have ever been done to prove that every person’s fingerprint is unique. Another controversial forensic technique is bite-mark comparison. The lack of scientific research backing up bite mark comparisons has played a role in many wrongful convictions over the years according to attorneys from The Innocence Project. However, not all forensic techniques are