Forensic Science and Security - Report Example

FORENSIC SCIENCE AND SECURITY For most people, forensics science is an interesting but confusing field of study which is full of intrigue and mystery. Evidently, individuals should investigate the field of forensics either to learn more of how criminal evidence is gathered and stored or to find out how the legal system employs the information obtained. Forensic science is delineated as any science that is employed for the purpose of the law (Schafer, 2008; Bogusz, 2000). This as a result offers unbiased scientific evidence which is used in the courts of law, for instance, in a criminal exploration and trial. Forensic science links different features of science and technology with the legal system. The field of forensic science draws evidence principally from biology and chemistry, amongst others including psychology, geology, and social science. During a normal criminal investigation, scene-of crime-officers usually collects material evidence from the suspect and/or victim, crime scene (Baden, and Roach, 2001). Forensic scientists afterwards examine the materials gathered in order to offer scientific evidence to help in the investigation and court procedures. Some of the examples of forensic science encompass the employment of gas chromatography in the identification of seized drugs, laser Raman spectroscopy to identify microscopic paint fragments, and DNA profiling to assist in the identification of a murder suspect (Owen, 2000), This essay will focus on forensic science and security and it will support the statement: technology is the key in forensic science. Technology is defined as the making, application, and knowledge of machines, tools, crafts, techniques, methods or systems of organization with the purpose of solving a predicament or carry put a certain function (Dreyfus and Spinosa, 2006). Studies have proven that, technology has impacted society and its environs in various ways. In most societies, technology has assisted in developing in developing more advanced economies. Furthermore, research has also indicated that different implementations of technologies have assisted in influencing the values of a community. However, most technological procedures produce un-necessary bi-products and reduce natural resources. Theoretical debates have begun over the present and future employment of technology in the societies; with disagreements over whether technology advances the human condition to worsen it (Dreyfus and Spinosa, 2006). Proponents of technology perceive sustained technological progress as useful to the human condition and to the society in general. This can be evidenced by the fact that technology has played a significant role in forensic science. Through technology, Scene-of crime-officers have bee able to investigate and provide evidence in court. Forensic science has greatly shaped the justice system, stimulating crime investigations and showing the advancement of modern technology (American Chemical Society, (2001). In the modern society, forensic science encompasses modern computer, Autopsy techniques, DNA fingerprinting, Toxicology and forensic anthropology amongst others (eNotes.com, Inc. 2011). Science backed up by technology has proven to be the most reliable technique of proving suspects guilty or innocent in courts of law. Evidently, the field of forensic science has rapidly grown in the contemporary society and the tools used by forensic researchers in search for evidence have also evolved speedily. Meticulous techniques for DNA gathering, extraction, quantification, amplification, detection and analysis have currently been replaced by high-throughput instrumentation, commercially available kits, and computer algorithms (eNotes.com, Inc. 2011). Studies have proven that, these tools have assisted forensic researchers in fortifying databases and even solve the most complex crimes. It is apparent that a DNA analysis encompasses various steps as mentioned above. Every step can be tackled through various techniques and can also encounter difficulties. As a result, forensic investigators should make certain that the procedure is documented and the methods followed correctly. This will assist in accurate determination of the profile from a DNA sample and make sure it is acceptable in a court of law (Newton, 2010). Technology has played an important part in ensuring that forensic science processes are carried out appropriately. Extracting DNA from a sample which is the first step in the analysis may employ commercially available protocols, which assist in separating DNA from buccal swabs. Likewise, most companies currently provide extraction kits of more multifaceted scene of crime samples (eNotes.com, Inc. 2011). Moreover, specialized protocols are obtainable which assist in isolating DNA from trace samples including blue jeans or cigarette butts. There are various techniques which form the foundation of DNA extraction kits. The most crucial method is the extraction by the use of alcohol precipitation or phenol-chloroform. DNA can also be isolated and purified using silica based columns or ion exchange resins (eNotes.com, Inc. 2011). Furthermore, specialized buffers and magnetic beads can also be used in the isolation. This is the newest technique and it is considered better compared to the home based techniques mentioned above as it allows the removal of contaminants by exposing the DNA to a series of buffers. In the current society, producers have highly manufactured automated machines to assist in the removal of DNA from forensic samples. These have simplified traditional ways whereby such a process had to be carried out manually which in many cases resulted to contamination of such samples. Automated systems are obtainable for all various kinds of columns, chemistries, and magnetic-bead based extractions. Automated DNA extraction has various benefits as put forth by researchers. First of all, the use of automated machines means less hands-on time by investigators and therefore, there is a reduced probability of human error or contamination with the protocol (eNotes.com, Inc. 2011). Furthermore, automated systems are in most circumstances very simple meaning that the laboratory technicians need not to be extremely specialized or trained. Lastly, the application of automated extraction permits for the processing of numerous samples every day compared to manual techniques which are time consuming. Compared to traditional forensic researchers who used gel in visualizing the DNA, modern forensic researchers make use of automated sequencers and nucleic acid analyzers to detect DNA series. In the earlier case, the gel enabled for the determination of the number of repeats in the sequence regions (National Research Council, Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science, 1992). According to studies, the automated techniques assist in removing the possible subjectivity of the analysis if carried out by the use of manual means. Afterwards, the DNA series are entered into a computer and the calculation and storage of the sequences is done by the use of software. Through the use of software programs, forensic scientists compare the series of the reference sample to other gene series profiles in the database. Through this, the forensic researchers are able to look for matches which help in investigations. Automation is usual in contemporary forensic laboratory which are used in carrying out various steps including amplification, detection and analysis. Many laboratories which perform DNA analysis are outfitted with a range of tools encompassing extraction systems, nucleic acid analyzers, thermalcyclers, and gene analysis software (Nickell and Fischer, 1999), Through this, the multifaceted manual processes which took a long time to perform can currently, through the use of technology be accomplished in just a few hours. Same as manual methods however, automated methods should be validated in order to make certain that they meet the guidelines and principles which are laid down by the governing agencies in forensic science including Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Interpol. Forensic scientists use near-infrared and infrared light technologies in recording images on specialized film and in spectroscopy, an instrument which determines the chemical structure of a molecule (for instance DNA) without damaging the molecule (eNotes.com, Inc. 2011). Another technology which is used in the field of forensic science is a lie detector. In 1902, James Mackenzie invented a polygraph machine or lie detector but it was considered to be less successful. Nevertheless, in 1921, John Larson invented the contemporary polygraph machine which has proven to be very successful in criminal investigations. The polygraph machine has been used by forensic investigators during cross-examination and investigation ever since 1924 (Baden, and Roach, 2001). However, until recently, the polygraph machine, is still contentious amongst psychologists, and in most cases, it is not judicially up to standard. The polygraph machine works in such a way that it usually records various diverse body responses at the same time as the suspect is cross-examined (Baden, and Roach, 2001). The theory behind its functioning is that when the individual lies, the lying results to a specific quantity of stress which produces modifications in various automatic psychological reactions. A sequence of diverse sensors is attached to the suspect’s body. The lie detector then measures modifications in blood pressure, breathing, perspiration and pulse and the data is recorded on a graph paper (Baden and Roach, 2001). During the test, the investigator poses a sequence of control questions which acts as a guide of how the person responds while offering false or true answers. Afterwards, the investigators proceeds in asking the actual questions combined with filler questions. For efficiency, the interrogation lasts for about two hours, after which the data obtained is interpreted by an expert. The functioning of polygraph machine has been a topic of controversy. Various researchers have supported its employment in interrogations and investigations whilst others argue that it is not an effective method to assess suspected criminals. The critics argue that body modifications which including breathing rate, blood pressure, perspiration and pulse rate can be caused by other factors such as nervousness and anxiety. As a result, the opponents put forth that, this measure should not be solely used to incriminate a person, but rather it should be combined with other effective methods such as DNA tests and fingerprints among others. Forensic investigators also make use of fingerprints during their investigations. These are marks left by an individual when he/she comes into contact with a surface. Since forensic scientists found out that each individual’s fingerprints are matchless, and investigators discovered that this singularity could assist them in catching offenders, fingerprints have been an essential component of the law enforcement procedure (Australian Forensic Science Society, 1981). However, fingerprinting has come a long way. Before the growth of the modern technology, investigators used to lift fingerprints from the scene of crime and then used manual methods to analyze such prints. They did this by comparing the prints obtained with the ones in their files. During the 19th century, fine powder was applied in order to make such marks more visible. However, in the contemporary society, fingerprints have been described to be unique and durable. Sir Francis Galton, an English scientist designed the initial basic system for categorizing fingerprints founded on classifying the patterns into loops, arches and whorls (Nickell and Fischer, 1999). Galton's system was advanced upon by Sir Edward R. Henry, London police commissioner, and until currently, it is the most commonly used technique of fingerprinting. Frequently, forensic scientists make use of ultraviolent light technologies whilst examining articles of clothing and searching for latent fingerprints (Australian Forensic Science Society, 1981). Currently, fingerprints are very helpful as they are employed to prevent individuals from forging signatures, verify job applicants, identify victims of accidents, and offer personalized assess to computer networks, and ATM amongst others (American Chemical Society, 2001). The modern techniques used to analyze fingerprints have simplified the task as these techniques can at the same time check billions of criminal records and in addition they have the capacity of matching backgrounds, faces, among other exclusive features to every perpetrator (Australian Forensic Science Society, 1981). Through the use of this system, forensic investigators are able to effectively come up with better results. This is evidenced by the fact that, several analyses can be carried out and repeated over time in case of controversies compared to the early method which did not offer room for repetition. Although cognitive technologies have amplified in use in the forensic science, their effectiveness is very questionable. Such technologies which encompass computerized databases and the application of Automated Fingerprints Identification Systems (AFIS) by forensic experts have demonstrated a linkage between humans and technology (Bogusz, 2000). It is true that the employment of cognitive technology is a complex matter. Opponents of cognitive technologies have argued that, if forensic scientists are going to technology to its maximum potential, they should understand first the impacts and implications of its usage and in return make the appropriate adaptations to technology itself and the manner in which individuals work with it (American Chemical Society, (2001). Technology has greatly transformed latent fingerprint identification as demonstrated by Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems. However, it is clear that strategies employed by individuals who use this technology have not been sufficiently adjusted and changed in reaction to these alterations. For instance, the chances that Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems search will provide fingerprints with various similarities, that is, look alike, highly similar, possibilities that prints from diverse sources will be obtained from an Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems search, have not yet been adequately explored or investigated. The opponents base their argument on this basis and put forth that this risk may imply that the application of Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems brings forth novel issues into the procedure of latent fingerprint identification. Some of these concerns, they argue that may amplify the possibilities of revealing erroneous identifications (American Chemical Society, (2001). In order to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the employment of technology in forensic science therefore, critics argue that there should be an explicit and suitable adaptation to the novel potential and novel challenges which are caused by the novel technologies. One subdivision of forensic science is computer forensic (Schafer, 2008). This is highly employed in organizations to detect frauds committed by the staffs. For instance, in 2001, Enron, a company in the United States went bankrupt which left many staffs jobless while some of the top managers seemed to benefit from this collapse. After hearing the allegations put forth concerning the corporate misconduct, the United States Congress settled on investigating on the same matter. Most of the evidence was obtained from computer files (American Chemical Society, 2001). Through the use of computer forensics, specialized detectives started to search through Enron staff computers with an aim of obtaining evidence linked with the company’s bankruptcy. The aim of computer forensic methods is to search, preserve, and analyze data on computer systems in order to obtain potential evidence for a court trial (American Chemical Society, 2001). Most of the methods employed by investigators in the scene of crime investigations usually have digital counterparts; however, there are some distinctive features to computer investigations. For instance, it is obvious that, merely opening a computer file modifies such a file. Generally, the computer records the date and time it was opened on the file itself. This means that if investigators confiscate a computer and begin opening the files, it is very hard to tell whether they did not modify anything. In this case, most lawyers usually contest the accuracy of the obtained evidence in court. They base their argument in the fact that, the investigators could have probably changed the content of the files after seizing them in order to serve in their best interest. Most individuals argue that the use of digital information is not a good idea. They claim that if it is easy to modify computer information, how then can it be applied as valid evidence to incriminate a criminal suspect? (American Chemical Society, 2001). It is apparent that most countries permit evidenced obtained from a computer in trials. Nevertheless, this has the capacity of being changed if computer evidence proves unreliable in future cases. The high growth in technology has made computers to become more powerful. This means that the field of forensic science has also constantly evolved. During the early times, a single investigator was capable of sorting through files due to the low storage capacity of computers. In the modern society however, it is a hard task as computers are capable of holding terabytes of information. As a result, forensic investigators have to come up with novels techniques of searching for evidence without devoting many resources to the procedure. With the use of technology, the processes of forensic science can be carried out with roughly no intervention from forensic researchers (Bogusz, 2000). Technology has transformed the forensic laboratory to nearly a high-tech factory. Forensic scientists, with the help of automated instruments are both able to process their present case samples and also chip away from the large accumulation of reference samples. The rapid growth in technology especially for the DNA databases will make certain that forensic investigators have an excellent opportunity of finding a match and thus solve a crime appropriately (Newton, 2010), However, questions have been put forth regarding forensic science, and the effectiveness of the technologies used to obtain evidences. Particularly, fingerprints evidence, and the hypothesis behind it has been published in various publications including the New York Post (Bogusz, 2000). The assumptions on the uniqueness of fingerprints have also being questioned as research as revealed that no academician has proved that each persons fingerprints is unique. Furthermore, forensic evidence is not exclusively immune from the risk of manipulation (American Chemical Society, (2001). With the development of technology, amplifying number of domains and tasks which were initially reserved for individual expertise are currently within the technology’s reach (American Chemical Society, (2001). These technologies usually perform cognitive computations and operations similar to individual cognitive information processing, therefore, may be distinguished as cognitive technologies. These technologies usually work in various ways which encompass: working to support and assist the human expert, working alongside individual expert in a mutual partnership, and the technology can also play a significant and critical role compared to the humans. This is what has brought about the effectiveness and efficiency in forensic science improving its reliability and validity. Evidently, from this discussion, it is apparent that technology has improved the techniques of forensic science making the reports obtained more dependable during trials. Surely, technology is the key in forensic science. References American Chemical Society, 2001. Science in a Technical World: Forensic Science. New York: W. H. Freeman. Australian Forensic Science Society. 1981. Technology and forensic science: handbook and proceedings of the Australian Seventh International Symposium on the Forensic Sciences held at the Science Centre, Sydney Australia, The Society. Baden, M. and Roach, M. 2001. Dead Reckoning: The New Science of Catching Killers. New York: Simon & Schuster. Bogusz, J. 2000. Forensic science. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Dreyfus, H. and Spinosa, C. 2006. Further Reflections on Heidegger, Technology, and the Everyday. New York: Routledge. eNotes.com, Inc. 2011. World of forensic science: technology and forensic science. Retrieved from http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/technology-forensic-science [Accessed October 28, 2011]. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science, 1992. DNA technology in forensic science. Washington: National Academies Press. Newton, E. 2010. DNA technology: a reference handbook. Harvard: ABC-CLIO. Nickell, J. and Fischer, J. 1999. Crime Science: Methods of Forensic Detection. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky. Owen, David. 2000. Hidden Evidence: The Story of Forensic Science and how it Helped to Solve 40 of the World's Toughest Crimes. London: Quintet Publishing. Schafer, D. 2008. Ancient science and forensics. Forensic Science. New York: Salem Press. Read More