Bogus or deceptive forensic evidence is a contributing factor to wrongful convictions. According to Innocence Project (2021), misinterpretation of forensic science contributes to 52% of all unjust convictions. Of these cases, the project discovered that these convictions were based on false forensic evidence that was fickle or invalid. These mistakes might have been made by practitioners and, in some cases, by a forensic analyst. Once an individual has been wrongfully convicted, it takes a lot of time to get back to court to prove their innocence. As much as it would be necessary to come up with a technique that lets the wrongfully convicted get back to court to prove their innocence, it would be even more critical to ensure that these wrongful convictions do not happen in the first place. Therefore, I would establish a system to ensure quality assurance and control of forensic work.
To ensure the accuracy of forensic work, I would establish a rigorous routine and procedures that ensure quality control. The criminal justice system can take these measures to ensure that the results and interpretation of any forensic work meet certain quality standards. These guidelines include ensuring that analysts complete periodic proficiency tests and that their equipment meets specified criteria. It is critical to ensure the equipment used is well sterilized and that the possibility of carrying DNA from one person to another is minimum. In addition, reagents and equipment should be properly maintained and monitored. According to Duncan (2019), such guidelines address the issues of forensic errors. Additionally, courts have started to admit that forensic evidence is likely to be error-free, which means that most forensic systems have already presented themselves as weak. However, this does not mean that we should do away with forensic science; we should ensure we make it better to do away with the possibilities of errors.
Fixing improper forensics is relevant to preventing wrongful convictions. However, I acknowledge that potential problems may arise with trying to fix the errors presented in forensic evidence. The forensic system will likely experience a substantial backlog of unanalyzed forensic samples. This, in turn, causes a backlog in cases in court. Even though ensuring reliable forensics is the key goal, it would mean we have to come up with another way to deal with the backlog of cases. However, I think law enforcement would like the idea since it would bring vital changes in preventing wrongful convictions. Additionally, the justice system can implement the program within a short time, and not much training is required. It is also not costly to implement the suggested reform.
In conclusion, although many errors made by forensic scientists and analysts are unintentional, there may be situations where scientists present data that favor police statements, whether the results support the evidence supporting the statements or not. Therefore, it is necessary that even when making these reforms, the criminal justice system ensures that the forensic officers and analysts are not biased in delivering their reports. In addition, the system should normalize frequent audits that keep officers on their toes and ensure they always submit the correct reports. The defense should also always ensure they cross-examine the evidence presented by the prosecution. The criminal justice system should intentionally prevent wrongful convictions by ensuring all forensics are valid and reliable.
Reference
Duncan, C. (2019). Justifying justice: Six factors of wrongful convictions and their solutions. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.31979/themis.2019.0706
Innocence Project. (2021, October 13). Overturning wrongful convictions involving misapplied forensics. https://innocenceproject.org/overturning-wrongful-convictions-involving-flawed-forensics/
write