The National Academy of Sciences says many courtroom claims about fingerprints, bite marks and other evidence lack scientific verification. It finds forensics inconsistent and in disarray nationwide.
For decades, forensic scientists have made sweeping claims in court about fingerprints, ballistics, handwriting, bite marks, shoe prints and blood splatters that lack empirical grounding and have never been verified by science.
This is just one conclusion of a two-year study by the National Academy of Sciences, which on Wednesday called for a wholesale overhaul of the crime lab system that has become increasingly critical to American jurisprudence.
The academy, the preeminent science advisor to the federal government, found a system in disarray: labs that are underfunded and beholden to law enforcement, lacking independent oversight and without consistent standards.
The report concludes that the deficiencies pose "a continuing and serious threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice," imperiling efforts to protect society from criminals and shield innocent people from wrongful convictions.
With the notable exception of DNA evidence, the report says that many forensic methods have never been shown to consistently and reliably connect crime scene evidence to a specific individual or source.
"The simple reality is that the interpretation of forensic evidence is not always based on scientific studies to determine its validity," the report says.
For example, the frequent claims that fingerprint analysis had a zero error rate are "not scientifically plausible," the report said. Regarding bite marks, it said, "the scientific basis is insufficient to conclude that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match."
Of the 232 people exonerated by DNA evidence, more than 50% of cases involved faulty or unvalidated forensic science, according to the Innocence Project. In Los Angeles, the Police Department is reviewing 1,000 fingerprint cases after discovering that two people had been wrongfully accused because of faulty fingerprint analysis.
Margaret Berger, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School and a member of the panel, explained, "We're not saying all these disciplines are useless. We're saying there is a lot of work needs to be done." While the panel's recommendations are not binding, they are considered influential. Many experts say the report could have a broad impact on crime labs and the courts, ushering in changes at least as significant as those generated by the advent of DNA evidence two decades ago. But the sweeping reforms proposed by the academy would take years of planning and major federal funding to enact.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/19/nation/na-crime-science19
No comments:
Post a Comment