More Forensics

"Just how scientific is forensic science?" is the title of this Chicago Now post at the Arresting Tales blog by Joe the Cop. Here's an extended excerpt:

The answer, according to a congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences, is that it's not as scientific as we thought.  The full report, titled "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward", was released in February of 2009.  For some reason, it didn't really get much attention until recently.  Stephen Markley mentioned a September 9th story on NPR in his post yesterday about the death penalty, and the Pittsburgh Gazette ran an article on September 12. 

Opponents of the death penalty have been quick to latch on to these reports.  Given the overwhelming evidence that at least one person, Todd Willingham, was wrongfully executed based on flawed testimony by an arson "expert", we all need to pay attention to this report no matter which side of the death penalty debate we're on.  If you believe that there are evil people in this world who need to be executed by the state, you'd have to agree that, at the very least, we have to make sure we're killing the right people.

A couple weeks ago I spent a day in our conference room watching a team of assistant public defenders go through all of our reports and case notes from a 2007 murder case.  One of the PD's had a court order to scan several latent fingerprints that had been lifted at the crime scene, along with the inked fingerprints taken from the defendant.  He was going to submit them to a third-party expert retained by the Public Defender.  I'm sure he's hoping like crazy that their expert reaches a different conclusion than did the Illinois State Police crime lab.  When I asked him about it, he said he's never had a result differ from the analysis by the ISP, but they always double check.

While I've seen nothing but exemplary work done by the evidence technicians I've worked with, there are clearly jurisdictions and labs where this is not the case.  Now, before you think I've gone soft and turned into some pro-defense dupe, consider this: the American Academy of Forensic Sciences issued a statement supporting the recommendations of the NAS report:

All forensic science disciplines must have a strong scientific
foundation.

All forensic science laboratories should be accredited.

All forensic scientists should be certified.

Forensic science terminology should be standardized.

Forensic scientists should be assiduously held to Codes of Ethics.

Existing forensic science professional entities should participate in
governmental oversight of the field.

Attorneys and judges who work with forensic scientists and forensic
science evidence should have a strong awareness and knowledge of the

scientific method and forensic science disciplines.

Earlier coverage of Todd Willingham begins with this post.