Does the Legal Profession Understand the Implication of Forensic Evidence - Literature review Example

Does the legal profession understand the implication of forensic evidence? Introduction The famous “father of criminalistics,” Paul Kirk once described the importance of forensic science in identifying the identity of a criminal. He said: Wherever he or she steps, whatever he or she touches, whatever he or she “leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as silent evidence against him” or her / Not only his or her fingerprints or his or her footprints, but his or her “hair, the fibers from his” or her “clothes, the glass he” or she “breaks, the tool mark he” or she leaves, the paint he or she “scratches, the blood or semen that he” or she “deposits or collects - all these and more bear mute witness against him” or her (Kirk, n.d. cited in Pyrek, 2007, p.1). From that statement alone, one would think about the critical role that forensic scientists play particularly in crime scene investigation. Almost everything that a criminal leaves in the place of crime commission can be subjected to scientific study. A suspect can be proven guilty when the result of the forensic investigation matches his or her identity. The problem however is the correct interpretation of the scientific result in relation to the facts of the crime. An incorrect analysis of the factual and physical evidences will surely put an innocent person to jail while setting free the true perpetrator. In such case, this assumption should serve as a guide to individuals making up the legal profession (ex. private lawyers, prosecutors and judges). In arriving at a decision, it is to be presumed that they have fully understood the implication of forensic evidence. Forensic Science Inman and Rudin cited that forensic science is probably “the least understood and most misunderstood of all scientific disciplines” (2001 cited in Pyrek, 2007, p.1). Instead of apprehending its essence and purpose in the criminal justice system, the public mind has been corrupted with rumors regarding the forensic profession. Forensic practitioners themselves are the primary cause of this problem. Some are only inspired by the celebrity and notoriety character that await them after solving a difficult crime. This has led the public to believe that such profession is insignificant and is only an avenue for talent exhibition by selfish and greedy forensic practitioners. This attribute coupled with the inability of legal professionals to segregate the true expert from the fake ones has encouraged self-appointed experts (Inman & Rudin, 2001 cited in Pyrek, 2007). This is one of the reasons why some critics support the premise that the legal profession does not understand the implication of forensic evidence. However, before making such judgment, it is appropriate to define first the term “understand” in relation to the main ideas. “Understand” in this case means the ability to comprehend the basic and simple implication of forensic evidence -- a wrong interpretation will convict the innocent and free the criminal. It is contended that legal professionals especially the law enforcement officers and lawyers understand this implication. Nevertheless, their lack of training and limited knowledge with regard to forensic science hinder them to derive the most precise comprehension (Domitrovich & Saks, 2009; Anonymous: Causes, n.d.). This has been attributed to the fundamental difference between the two professions -- legal profession versus forensic science profession. Law and Science Legal professionals and forensic experts were educated in a different way. When one talks about the legal profession, it is generally associated to lawyers. As reflected by the term “lawyers,” the legal profession is mainly concerned about the law. On the other hand, when one says forensic science profession, it is assumed to deal with science. Forensic science is actually an applied science (Pyrek, 2007; Walker & Wood, 2009). It is an applied science because it uses the other branches of science (i.e. chemistry, physics, biology and genetics) to produce data which is applied to relevant laws (Anonymous: How, n.d.). As such, two important keywords are to be derived from the two professions: law and science. Law and science have contradictory principles. According to James and Nordby (2005, p.5), law is outcome based whereas science is justification based. Lawyers are concerned with revealing the truth from set of facts. Their arguments are not based on theory but on sound and actual evidences. Each set of argument is judged and the corresponding decision puts an end to the case. In contrast, science is more on making theories. The success of a theory depends on the scientific method that is used, available data and means of persuasion. A theory is neither a fact nor an absolute truth (Helmenstine, n.d.). Theories are ought to be tried and tested for considerable period of time. They are always refutable unlike the decisions set forth by judges. Court decisions are deemed final and executory unless appeal is still available and exhausted. Forensic Science in Law Schools Law schools have different techniques in honing the speaking ability and evidence-gathering skill of their students. Forensic science is usually not included in school curriculum. It is likewise offered as another course. What law schools mostly do is requiring their students to enroll into a forensics and evidence class. Forensics is offered as one of the subjects to be taken by students to improve their argumentation skill. It is considered a pre-requisite to a moot court class. Evidence is also offered as a subject which is usually taken by third year students of law. The study of forensic science is part of this subject. In such case, only the basic and most controversial topics in forensic science are studied by the would-be lawyers. They only have limited knowledge and training in forensic science. What they will learn further depends on their later experience as a lawyer. This only proves that lawyers are indeed lacking of scientific training (Golan, 2004 cited in Mnookin, n.d.). A lawyer named Judith Fordham has realized “how little she and her colleagues knew about forensics” (n.d. cited in troy m, 2006). She said that many lawyers do not know how to properly present forensic evidence in court. She was scared by the fact that some individuals are “being convicted or acquitted” simply “because lawyers don’t know enough about science” (Fordham, n.d. cited in troy m, 2006). The Rise of Forensic Evidence Recently, there has been a huge rise in the use of forensic evidence (Jobling & Gill, 2004 cited in Beaver, 2010). Forensic scientists have been referred to by judges and lawyers to analyze a case. At this moment, they are considered vital in solving crimes and even in civil cases. Forensic science experts are hired to determine the DNA of a child, whether it matches the DNA of the alleged father or not. DNA testing is used to prove paternity affiliation in civil proceedings. In most cases however, forensic scientists are hired to solve crimes. Forensic science professionals are actually responsible to: (1) “detect physical evidence” and (2)”link this evidence to the crime scene and a suspect” (Anonymous: Careers, n.d.) Physical evidence is conclusive unless altered by human hands. This is the reason why detecting relevant physical evidences in the crime scene is very important. Nevertheless, linking physical evidences to the crime scene and to a suspect is the most crucial stage. It involves pure analysis. It requires expertise in the field of forensic science. Just like Sherlock Holmes, forensic scientists are ought to be “calculating, uncannily observant, brilliantly eccentric, and completely trustworthy when not lying in a lethargic, opium-induced haze” (Pyrek, 2007, p.2). The Call for a Comprehensive Training To solve the problem on the lack of training and limited knowledge of legal professionals with regard to forensic science, a change in law school’s curriculum should happen. The change may include making forensic science as a required subject which shall be studied in two semesters: Forensic Science I in the first semester and Forensic Science II in the second semester. Forensic Science I would deal with the study of the subject as a science. It is more on information and theories. Forensic Science II would involve evidence gathering and presenting. The gathering of evidence using forensic science should be taken away from the “evidence” subject. Another option could also be requiring graduating students to have an intern job in crime laboratories so that they can have actual knowledge about the work of a forensic scientist. They are ought to assess the duties of forensic scientists and learn their techniques. The job immersion should be for five months. The two mentioned options will lengthen the time before one could graduate law but they are possibly effective ways for lawyers to be experts in forensic science too. They would have the legal and scientific training to handle a case. The citizen’s trust to the justice system will be strengthened and the legal profession shall continue to be the most respected profession of all. For the current lawyers, the Supreme Court should issue a circular requiring them to attend various seminars relating to forensic science. Conclusion Lawyers are no ordinary mortal. Many are interested but only few are admitted to the profession. It is thus logical to say that legal professionals understand the implication of forensic evidence. The only problem is that they lack knowledge and expertise in forensic science. With the rising use of forensic evidence in court, the lawyers themselves will be motivated to learn more about forensic science. This is especially true if a lawyer handles a complicated criminal case. If not because of forensic science, the truth behind the case will be a mystery and the criminal justice system will not serve its purpose (Anonymous: Forensics, n.d.). References Anonymous, n.d. Careers in forensic science. [online] Available at: http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/careers-forensic-science [Accessed 3 November 2010]. Anonymous, n.d. Causes of wrongful convictions. [online] Available at: http://www.texasinnocencenetwork.com/Wrongful-Convictions-Causes.cfm [Accessed 8 November 2010]. Anonymous, n.d. Forensic science: let evidence reveal the truth. [online] Available at: http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/index1.htm [Accessed 8 November 2010]. Anonymous, n.d. How forensic science is applied to criminal justice. [online] Available at: http://www.elearnportal.com/online-criminal-justice-degree/how-forensic-science-is-applied-to-criminal-justice [Accessed 8 November 2010]. Beaver, K., 2010. The promises and pitfalls of forensic evidence in unsolved crimes. Criminology and Public Policy, [online] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00636.x/abstract [Accessed 8 November 2010]. Domitrovich, S. & Saks, M., 2009. NAS calls for “overhauling” a “badly fragmented” forensic science system: major reforms and new research. [online] Available at: http://www.judges.org/news/news041009.html [Accessed 8 November 2010]. Helmenstine, A. M., n.d. Scientific hypothesis, theory, law definitions: learn the language of science. [online] Available at: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm [Accessed 8 November 2010]. James, S. & Nordby, J. eds., 2005. Forensic Science: An introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques. 2nd ed. Florida: CRC Press. Mnookin, J., n.d. Science at bar. [online] Available at: http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/science-at-the-bar [Accessed 8 November 2010]. Pyrek, K., 2007. Forensic science under siege: the challenges of forensic laboratories and the medico-legal death investigation system. San Diego, California: Elsevier Academic Press. Troy m, 2006. Lawyers “dont get” science. Forensic news blog. [blog] 18 September, Available at: http://forensicnews.blogspot.com/2006/09/lawyers-dont-get-science.html [Accessed 4 November 2010]. Walker, P. & Wood, E., 2009. Forensic science experiments. New York: Infobase Publishing. Read More