THE TRUTH ABOUT FORENSIC SCIENCE

The field of forensic science is growing rapidly; even television crime dramas like CSI tend to depict it as a tool capable of solving crime. In real life, crime scenes do not always spring convincing forensic evidence and analysts do not at all times catch everything. Juries, though, have come to believe that they do. This seems like a small problem as depicted in the television dramas, but this is not the case.

In reality, crime scene detectives and crime labs are usually under-funded and overworked. This has materialized into a series of backlogs of unexamined evidence, created queries with preserving evidence when it is collected. In the most recent high-profile crime lab scandal, led a Massachusetts chemist to do away with many lab samples.

THE TRUTH ABOUT FORENSIC SCIENCE

The problems with forensic science are many and have called for more research and higher scientific principles to ensure trustworthiness in solving crimes. We hereby look at two of the most common forensic methods used.

Fingerprints have long been regarded as the highest standard of forensic evidence for a long time now, but specialists have questioned exactly what establishes a match. This technic try to match finger print left at a crime scene to some print on file. The acknowledged technic for examination is called ACE-V for evaluation, comparison, analysis and general verification. Detectives take into consideration features such as patterns, length, ridge shapes and similarities to establish a match. The last step is reached when a second detective arrives at the same conclusion. Several law enforcement organization use hi-tech fingerprint identification coordination to identify possible matches. However human examiners at all times have the ultimate say.

Although we use this method, there is no study that has proved definitively that fingerprints are unique. Similarly, it is not clear if finger prints change over a period of time or that they show a discrepancy subject on the amount of pressure applied. Furthermore, studies are needed to expose inaccuracy rates. The ACE-V technic depends on two or more detectives reaching the same result, but it does not require them to go the same way.

Forensic examiners also use marks left on bullets to match them to particular rifles. The technique though lacks a solid base of examination and mistakes are common. The concept behind ballistics analyses is that the production and use of a gun produces distinctive tool marks inside the barrel, which are then imprinted on each bullet fired from that firearm. Forensic detectives measure bullet size to establish caliber, then check the direction of flick through marks and the extent of twist to be able to define the firearm’s manufacturer.To match a particular gun to a bullet, detectives’ test-fire the firearm with a new bullet and compare both shells under a microscope, observing for similar striations. Detectives can also inquire from computer forensics that recommend potential matches.

There is not enough study that has been done to verify the probability of mistake in ballistic matching just as with finger prints. This impairs the matching procedure that the marks made on fired bullets are certainly unique to an individual firearm.

This clearly shows that forensic methods have not been given enough attention that is required. Many a time we hear news of convicts being released from jails after their cases were reviewed. This shows that additional researches are needed as this is the future of solving many crimes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *