Scientific Method Applied to Forensic Science - Essay Example

and Sur scientific method in forensic science Forensic science is an elaborate art which needs both intuitive intelligence and supporting concrete evidence. Practicing it involves a great degree of responsibility and honesty as crucial inferences and decisions are based on available evidence and their proper interpretation. Forensic science follows a thorough and methodical approach to solve crime. Over the years and with the advent of technology forensic science too has benefitted like many other branches of science. The main purpose of a forensic expert is to provide logical interpretation and inferences to the available evidence by scientific analyses which are then presented to the authorities who make a decision independently based upon their own judgment of the facts. The general public is mislead by fantastic feats of forensic science as viewed by them in movies and television serials, but actually forensic science is a difficult and challenging art to practice as it is built upon what scenario is presented after the event has occurred which is very difficult to reconstruct considering fallacies in human judgment. At the best a near and accurate guess can be made, as it is impossible to emulate the exact sequence of events. The sequence followed in forensic science ‘consists of preliminaries, followed by documentation, collection and preservation of evidence in order to arrive at a crime reconstruction scenario and final interpretation’ (Nickell Joe & Fischer John F.). The preliminaries include arriving at the scene of the crime at the earliest and taking control of the situation immediately by identifying the people at site and eliminating destruction of evidence by the crowds, media persons, etc. in order to form an appropriate and accurate hypothesis of the situation at hand. Inadvertent destruction of evidence by the police personnel, medical teams and other well wishers at the site has to be eliminated at the first instance. Definite duties are then assigned to forensic assistants in order to eliminate duplication of tasks by an overall controlling officer. The main duties of forensic experts are divided between the photographer, measurer, master note taker and the evidence collector (Nickell Joe & Fischer John F). Each of this activity is to be handled by the expert in the field who has to gather his data in a rapid and accurate manner. After the preliminaries, the next step is that of documentation which includes the ‘photographs, a crime scene sketch and the notes’ (Nickell Joe & Fischer John F). The photographs will include any noticeable objects, fingerprints, footprints, tread marks of vehicles, stains, etc. Modern day forensic science can also document the facts in the form of video recordings and collection of footage from closed circuit video cameras if present at the crime scene. Footage from amateur photographers who may be present at the crime scene and have volunteered as good Samaritans to provide it to the investigating authorities is also a very good source of vital evidence. After the documentation, the collection of samples and evidence from the scene of the crime for appropriate tests in the relevant laboratories is done which can later be correlated to the documented facts gathered earlier. Based on all these, a set of hypothesis are proposed which are then rejected by elimination one by one until the most plausible and sound scenario seems correct in correlation with the evidence. The judgment however is not the prerogative of the forensic expert and is left to the appropriate judiciary authorities who can make their conclusions based on the facts presented to them. Forensic science unlike other established methodologies in science is unique in the sense that it has to prove its hypotheses in a retrospective manner by visualizing what has happened in the past which is an extremely difficult task. The scientific method as applied o other branches of science which involve observation, deduction from physical evidence and proof by experimentation, does not hold true for forensic science as these standard methods do not work for events which have occurred in the past (Young Thomas). According to Young ‘past events cannot be observed, predicted or deduced from physical evidence and cannot be tested experimentally’. Forensic science just employs the scientific method by correlating the gathered facts, laboratory findings, eyewitness accounts, investigative procedures and the events leading to the crime to arrive at the most likely scenario which could still be wrong and subject to change with more evidence coming up subsequently. Generalizations in forensic science are therefore not possible as each event is unique and subject to a number of variability factors. As the forensic science studies the past and not the present, its methodologies are unique and unlike the accepted norms in other branches of science (Young Thomas). Determining what happened in the past and who was responsible cannot be based on scientific theories (Young Thomas). ‘The relation of the events that have occurred at the scene of the crime can be correlated with the findings of the forensic experts and predicted with a reasonable sense of accuracy’. The forensic experts have to work in tandem to correlate all sorts of evidence obtained during the investigation to arrive at a consistent result with consensus of the contributing experts. The pathologists sometimes use the term ‘anamnestic-anatomic disharmony’ when they find that the post mortem findings are not consistent with the history of the case and eye witness accounts of the crime (Young Thomas). The facts in such a case are needed to be analyzed all over again until the discordant events are eliminated. Even then the forensic experts can just give an opinion, which may not be necessarily correct. According to Young more emphasis should be laid on ‘obtaining anamnestic data and correlating it with the procedural findings’. Observable physical findings may be consistent with a number of different events which can lead to similar clues at the moment of observation and are thus not always pointing towards the actual facts which can only be deduced. Verification and falsification are two vital tools in any forensic investigation (Young Thomas). Verification is accomplished when the forensic findings related to test results in the laboratory are compared with the witness or suspect statements given at the very beginning of the investigation. If the statements are not commensurate with the laboratory findings it can be assumed with a certain degree of accuracy that the statements were incorrect, as the persons making those statements are not aware of the laboratory results. A trained investigator can then conduct inquiries from the witnesses or suspects and find out whether they are speaking the truth or not. Falsification is the method where other explanations are sought for a fact which could be attributable to a number of causes by eliminating such causes one by one, using the available facts and evidence. The available evidence is used to convince the jury of the plausibility of a scenario by falsification of other possibilities sequentially. Forensic experts though extremely pertinent to a crime investigation, where they play a stellar role, have very little control of how their investigation results are used. Law and science are the two powerful factors which tend to dominate each other and the forensic science is just a mediator between the two. The forensic scientific method is just a process of investigation involving observation and theory to test hypotheses and is an applied science which attempts using scientific facts to overcome practical problems. The perspective of the investigator with which he looks at a crime is very important for the formation of hypotheses, which are then attempted to be rationalized using successive methods of investigation, research, inquiry and correlation with concrete, abstract and circumstantial evidence. Even after a possible likelihood of the crime scenario has been reconstructed by the forensic experts with incriminating evidence, it is still subject to questioning and doubt by the judicial authorities who have a legal framework to follow in order to convince themselves and others of the facts to ensure a just decision. Laboratory tests and findings although accurate and unchallengeable, cannot always be correct in predicting or satisfying the requirements of a hypothesis as the laboratory results are just bare facts and calculations based on inanimate scientific data and could be misleading when mere numbers and values of a particular entity are considered as proof. Such data may have been generated due to entirely different cause factors and throw the light on the case under investigation in a completely opposite manner. For example, a master criminal may have carried out certain preliminary activities which could have given laboratory results which could mislead the investigating authorities. Moreover science is unable to comprehend the complexity of human interactions which could affect the evidence in a major way. Psychopaths and religious fanatics may have been driven by entirely different and unimaginable factors while committing a murder, while the evidence presented might be more generalized and subject to misinterpretation. Forensic science is a difficult art to practice. Still it involves a set pattern of investigation where observation is combined with evidence to form various hypotheses which are then subjected to appropriate and established testing methods. Inferences are then drawn by logic and reinforcement with scientific tests conducted by independent experts, sometimes using more than one testing laboratory, so that any scope for error is completely eliminated. With the advent of modern technology like DNA testing, protein sequencing, availability of records in electronic formats from cell phones and other recording data, the art may have become easier but it does not take away the proper use of an intuitive mind and correlation logic, which is possible only with human intelligence. References: Nickell Joe & Fischer John F., Crime Science: Methods of Forensic Detection, 1998, University Press of Kentucky Young Thomas, Forensic Science and the Scientific Method, Online Article available at: http://www.heartlandforensic.com/writing/forensic-science-and-the-scientific-method Read More