Expressing the value of forensic science in policing

Abstract

Only a small part of forensic science activities scattered across criminal justice systems is the object of scientific scrutiny, and is taken into account when evaluating the added-value brought by this discipline. These include abductive and inductive species of inferences used in crime investigation, crime analysis and criminal intelligence. The 'scientificity' of these processes may be questioned, but it is not contested that they largely determine the global outcome of justice systems. As a result they cannot be ignored. To unlock the debate, it is proposed to turn the forensic science focus from means (instruments, techniques, methods) to ends (what is the problem, what are the objectives?). This perspective naturally leads to proactive models of policing. It also provides possible frameworks to express various uses of the information conveyed by traces for solving problems. Reframed forensic science contributions are more validly expressed and the current debate can ultimately be transcended.

La sélection et l’évaluation des techniciens en scène de crime

“…Cependant, peu d'études empiriques paraissent s'être précisément intéressées aux perceptions des décideurs stratégiques et financiers des corps de police concernant les services d'identité judiciaire, et ce, même si la littérature scientifique reconnaît leur rôle dans l'exploitation et le développement de la criminalistique (Bell, 2006 ;Bitzer et al, 2016 ;Ribaux, Roux et Crispino, 2017 ;Rossy et Ribaux, 2014). Les quelques études s'y étant intéressées tendent à souligner que les cadres policiers ne cerneraient que partiellement la nature de la discipline et les nombreuses possibilités qu'elle offre, se distinguant dès lors très peu des autres acteurs de la communauté policière (Crispino, Rossy, Ribaux et Roux, 2015 ;Tilley et Ford, 1996 ;Williams, 2004).…”

The Kodak Syndrome: Risks and Opportunities Created by Decentralization of Forensic Capabilities

“…Part of the 1‰ of reported crimes are potential of high relevance to the court in forensic terms and are a predominant focus of forensic science in general. There is, however, an imbalance between the degree of interest in expressing the earlier phase of the process and the interest in bringing added‐value to the society at large, and to the criminal justice system in particular . Figure illustrates this imbalance between the inordinate focus on preparation for court versus the utilization of traces in the earlier phases of evidential inquiries; it is in these earlier phases that a traditional laboratory can express its value more assertively in transformed forensic processes.…”

Forensic intelligence and the analytical process

“…This requires a reframing of forensic science contributions “from means (instruments, techniques, methods) to ends (what is the problem, what are the objectives? )” (Ribaux, Roux, & Crispino, ), and a refocusing onto crime prevention and disruption, while maintaining the usual service to courts (Raymond & Julian, ). Currently forensic science is solely concerned with satisfying the courtroom.…”

“…The crime scene therefore is the beginning point for forensic intelligence, and the policies for attendance, the roles and actions of the CSIs, and so on, determine how successfully this process is initiated (Bruenisholz et al, ). There are several desirable attributes for CSIs, for instance capable cognitive abilities and the capacity to think “outside the square, not just rote‐learned uncreative solutions” (Ribaux et al, ). CSIs should be seen “not only as collectors but also as investigators and as advisors” (Ludwig et al, ), and should be “empowered to use their professional judgment at scenes” (ACPO/FSS, ) and embrace an iterative, hypothesis‐led investigation (adapted “Scientific investigation method” in Figure ).…”