Bias and Quality Control in Forensic Science: A Cause for Concern

Abstract

Today science, technology, and criminological specialization pervade the criminal process. This evolution has not been without reason. Many of the mainstays of the field of law enforcement have been weakened, and in the process, law enforcement officials have come to rely more and more on science. Modern research has demonstrated an underlying unreliability in regard to eyewitness testimony. Court decisions have limited the use of confessions and altered police procedures regarding interviews and interrogations. Forensic science has emerged into the main arena of the law enforcement process. Like its predecessors, though, forensic science could fall into disuse unless it has the foresight to control and guide its destiny in a better fashion.

How to Improve Forensic Science

“…I do not share the faith of Saks et al in the powers of oversight and of command and control. Thomson (1974) calls for a suite of reforms that is in several ways similar to the set of changes I will propose. Some significant differences exist, however.…”

Equity Levers: What Predicts Enrollment in and Number of College‐Level Courses Taken in High School?

“…The only peer factor that predicted dual enrollment course taking-having peers who take college entrance exams-may reflect the heightened salience of like-minded peers in the absence of strong, positive family support for dual enrollment (Barber & Wasson, 2015). The expanded focus of dual enrollment to include students at all levels of academic achievement, or multiple high school tracks, may complicate parents' perceptions of its rigor but be acceptable or understandable among peers (Thomson, 2017).…”

Wrongful convictions and forensic science

“…Such laboratory scandals in which intentional forensic science misconduct or errors favored the prosecution (Giannelli, 1997(Giannelli, , 2007Turvey, 2013) provide some evidence that pro-prosecution bias exists. Because law enforcement agencies administer most publicly funded crime laboratories in the United States (NRC, 2009;Peterson, Mihajlovic, & Bedrosian, 1985), some scholars have suggested that it is this structural relationship that creates the potential for proprosecution bias (Giannelli, 1997;Jonakait, 1991;Moenssens, 1993;NRC, 2009;Thomson, 1974). Consequently, many have argued that crime laboratories should be removed from the administrative control of law enforcement (DiFonzo, 2005;Giannelli, 1997;Scheck et al, 2003).…”