Forensic science plays an important role in the administration of justice, but many of the methods used in it have never been scientifically substantiated. This was noted by a group of enterprising scientists who had previously served on the National Commission for Criminalistics. Now they argue that it is necessary to expand the research and financing of this industry in order to present new methods, including those that exclude subjectivity in making expert decisions.
Six independent scientists have
criticized the methods used in forensic science. Traditionally, they evolved regardless of the main scientific culture. As soon as any method, like comparing bite marks, was used in a criminal case, its subsequent fate was determined by case law. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences of the United States released a report in which it noted that "with the exception of DNA tests, no judicial method has demonstrated the ability to consistently and with a high degree of accuracy demonstrate the relationship between evidence and a specific person or source."
In 1984, the method of
genetic fingerprinting , or DNA fingerprinting, was discovered. Its use in forensic science, including in relation to old cases, led to an understanding of an important systemic problem in this complex of methods - they are subjective.
“Judicial reform is a difficult task, because the law [
in the Anglo-Saxon legal family - approx. lane] is based on historical precedent, while science must constantly evolve. But if the ultimate goal of the legal system is to achieve justice, the evidence in court should be based on modern, scientifically based methods, ”says Thomas Albright, professor and director of the
Vision Center Laboratory at the Salk Institute.
Can an expert determine without a DNA test with 100% certainty that the hair found at the crime scene matches the hair of the suspect? Twenty or thirty years ago, experts looked at hair under a microscope and analyzed their physical features. So it was with
Donald Gates , whom he condemned in 1982. The hair found at the crime scene was the main evidence of guilt. Criminalist Michael Malone (Michael P Malone) at the court said: the chance that the hair belongs to another person, one in ten thousand.
Malone was fired in the 1990s for false testimony in another case. The analysis technique he used was discredited. And Donald Gates, as it turned out, served for rape and murder, which he did not commit - the DNA test helped to establish innocence.
Gates was released from prison with 75 dollars in his pocket in 2009, having served 28 years. For six years, lawyers managed to sue $ 16 million from Washington authorities.
Donald GatesNo one will repay Gates's time, but his life is still left to him. There are more sad stories. In Australia,
Colin Campbell Ross was hanged in 1922 - investigators found strands in his bed that resemble the hair of a murdered 12-year-old Alma Trishka. In the early 2000s, the evidence found in the archives was checked, and a man hanged 86 years ago was rehabilitated. There are many other similar examples related to biomaterials found at the crime scene. Campbell Ross was the owner of the saloon, referred to in this newspaper clipping about the sad fate of the girl.
Another unscientific method that prosecutors in the United States are still using to build a line of accusation is based on the proof that a person has bite marks. This method has already discredited itself, as well as experts in this area: the tests showed that they are unable to accurately tell on the traces on human skin, whether they were left by human teeth, whether they are teeth, and even more so if this track coincides with the teeth of a particular suspect.
According to the data of
2017, this method was used to charge 24 people, whose innocence, again, was proved by DNA. Scientists for many years require a moratorium on the use of such methods to prove and switch to scientifically based tools.
One of the indisputable and scientific methods seems fingerprinting. But, as the
researchers found out , specialists in this profile can also make different conclusions on the same prints, if experts are involved in the investigation and know the details of the case.
The defeat of a large number of forensic tools was published in the United States 2000 Report on the Status of Forensic Science. At first, the experts give incorrect conclusions, then the witnesses correct their testimony according to these conclusions. As a result, people who are not involved in crimes go to prison, have been in it for many years or are executed.
Wrong conclusions experts give and the results of DNA tests. In 2010, journalists and scientists united to verify the objectivity of such research. The real-life biomaterials were obtained by 17 analysts from accredited US laboratories. In a real case of gang rape, the expert claimed that the suspect “could not be excluded” from the participants in the crime. “Control” experts in 12 cases said that “he can be excluded”, and only in one case the specialist agreed with the results of the first examination.
This does not mean that the method is useless - it means that it is necessary to exclude any subjectivity. “In many procedures, such as matching fingerprints, traces or matching bullets, people make visual similarity decisions, and people make mistakes,” Albright says.