Failures in Forensic Science & Wrong Convictions
It has long been shown by groups such as the Innocence Project that there are many wrongful convictions resulting in innocent people being sent to jail for long periods of time or being executed from crimes they did not commit.
In our current times there are many social commentators, and politicians, who refuse the accept that many of our long held views on causes of crime and the ways in which we present evidence to the courts, is wrong. These same commentators tend to demand more money, more resources, harsher penalties without considering that much of what we rely on in the criminal justice system is just plain wrong.
A report from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) on the impact of false or misleading forensic evidence on wrongful convictions sheds light on the complexities and dangers associated with errors in forensic science. This study, spearheaded by Dr. John Morgan, is critical in understanding the types of errors that occur and how they contribute to wrongful convictions.
Forensic evidence errors often result from misstatements in forensic science reports, incorrect evidence classification or individualization, and errors in testimony. These errors are not always due to the scientists performing the examinations; more often, they are related to systemic issues such as inadequate training, miscommunication of results, or organizational deficiencies within forensic science organizations. The study identified specific types of errors through a forensic error typology, which categorizes and codes these issues to help in their identification and rectification.
The research analyzed 1,391 forensic examinations across 732 cases, showing that the majority of forensic evidence errors were not direct misidentifications by forensic scientists. Instead, errors were frequently due to broader issues within the justice system, including the handling and reporting of evidence by officers of the court and reliance on presumptive tests without proper laboratory confirmation. This highlights the importance of system-wide reforms to improve the reliability of forensic evidence.
Dr. Morgan’s work also emphasized the need for ongoing education and improvement within forensic science disciplines to prevent these types of errors. This includes the enforcement of stringent standards and practices to minimize the risk of wrongful convictions due to forensic evidence errors. In fact, it was noted that better technology and standards might have prevented wrongful convictions in about half of the cases examined.
This comprehensive analysis serves as a crucial resource for the forensic science community, providing insights into the specific areas that need attention and improvement to enhance the accuracy and reliability of forensic evidence in the criminal justice system.
For more detailed information and findings, you can read the full report on the NIJ’s website [here](https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/impact-false-or-misleading-forensic-evidence-wrongful-convictions ).
