The Long-Awaited Call for Forensic Science Reform
Earlier this week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a
prestigious research organization that advises Congress, released a
long-awaited report detailing comprehensive recommendations to improve the
practice and use of forensic science in the American criminal justice system.
The report concludes that forensic labs and the system of oversight of forensic science
are in dire need of broad structural changes to ensure reliability, and put
forensic evidence on a sound scientific footing. This report was the culmination of an
ambitious two year study, conducted by a NAS committee at the direction of
Congress, of the current state of forensic science. This committee was charged
with, among other tasks, assessing the accuracy and reliability of forensic
testing and evidence used in criminal trials and investigations; identifying
systemic problems with the practice and use of forensic science; and
recommending best practices and solutions to improve the reliability of
forensic evidence utilized in the criminal justice system.
Given the critical importance of forensic testing and
evidence in the investigation, apprehension, and conviction of criminals, as
well as the exoneration of the innocent, the task assigned to the National
Academy of Sciences was a critical one. The use of forensic evidence in the
criminal justice system has skyrocketed in recent decades, and unfortunately,
so have the instances in which faulty forensic evidence contributed to the
wrongful convictions of innocent people. Despite the reputation of forensic
science as being a reliable and accurate means of excluding certain suspects
and identifying others, often fostered by popular shows such as CSI, forensic
science is often deeply flawed and inaccurate--unreliable or false forensic
evidence led to the wrongful conviction of over half of the first two hundred
people exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States.
The findings of the NAS are consistent with this fact. Their
report concludes that forensic science is rife with problems, including a lack
of thorough research and testing to establish the reliability of many forensic
disciplines, under-staffed and under-funded forensic labs, a lack of adequate
educational and training programs for forensic scientists, a lack of mandatory
certification requirements for analysts and accreditation programs for labs,
and effective oversight of analysts and forensic facilities. These systemic
problems, among others identified by the NAS, "pose a continuing and serious
threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice." The report
recommends the establishment of a National Institute of Forensic Science to
establish and enforce best practices for forensic science professionals and
laboratories; and standards for the mandatory accreditation of labs and
certification of analysts. NAS recommends this new institute fund additional
research in the various forensic science disciplines and research on the
possible sources and effects of bias and human error in the practice of
forensic science, as well as funding to assist all forensic laboratories in the
states to become independent from law enforcement agencies.
I commend the NAS for their exhaustive review of forensic
science in our criminal justice system, and their recommendations to
re-structure the way forensic science is practiced in the
It is my sincerest hope that now, with the body of research
and guidance provided by the National Academy of Sciences, the federal
government and the states will begin to take critical steps towards improving
the practice and use of forensic science in criminal trials. Ensuring the best
and most accurate evidence makes it into the courtroom is absolutely critical
in maintaining fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.
John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.









Perhaps now the massive backlog of cases waiting for forensic input will be addressed.
February 20, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be somewhat off topic, but I read a piece in the New Yorker at least 2 years ago detailing a study of eye witness identification processes. They found that when the witnesses were given a group of photos, or a line-up of several people they were very likely to pick the one who most resembled the person they had seen commit a crime. It was as if the assumption was that the person was definitely there, and they HAD to pick him/her out. When given one picture or one person to look at at a time they were much more likely to accurately say "yes" or "no" when doing the identification.
Do you know anything about this, and do you know if the process has changed? The study was done by a law enforcement agency; not a psychologist's PHD thesis, BTW.
February 21, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink