Criminal Justice and Forensic Science

Abstract

Forensic science is a new technological breakthrough that has enabled the judicial systems and bodies carrying out investigations to have an easy time in prosecution of suspects. Despite assisting very much in the trial, a series of challenges have been witnessed in using forensic science technology in carrying out investigations. This gives the implication that there have certain limitations when it comes to adopting forensic science in examinations. These progressions and constraints have allowed for time to time development of the criminal justice platforms. The paper will majorly focus on forensic science generally, how they are utilised by the prosecution and defense, and later delve into the strength and weaknesses of the forensic science technology. The paper will finally develop some recommendations which will be used to create an improvement in the admission of court testimonies.

Description

Fire, which is always part and parcel of everyday life can be of great risk is some instances. In prosecution, fire can be used as a weapon for criminal intention, a concept called arson. Globally, there are various police departments that are assigned the role of carrying out fire investigations. However, some places have a completely different and independent task force that is responsible for fire investigations. Studies (The Forensics Library, n.d.) indicate the in the leading 16 cities of the US, and there is a fire department that is mandated to carry out fire and arson investigations while only four cities were left to be handled by the police and council teams(Lee, 1951). The study further pointed out that there was almost an even split within the sixteen cities as to which ones had dedicated squad, which one has no squad and which one go teams with service provisions.

As opposed to numerous other categories of forensic science like use of DNA and fingerprinting, fire analysis adopts the method of trained professionals to check and interpret available evidence which aids them in making conclusions as to whether a suspect was involved in arson or not. The procedure may be difficult but it is structured in such a way to have a series of backup approaches that boost the evidence that has been used by investigative agencies to make arson conclusions. The main concern of the forensic investigation is always about site safety. The safety is determined by the structural competence of the building, electrical outlets, gas lines and any other material that may have been damaged by fire which could have led to toxic mixtures. As a result, there are safety measures that have to be always put in place before commencing any investigation.

Make sure your essay is 100% unique

Our experts will write for you an essay on any topic, with any deadline and requirements from scratch

127 our experts are available
right now

Get custom essay

When investigators begin doing their job of forensic audit, there is always need to exercise great caution on what they touch on the crime scene. Photos and samples are ever taken from the crime scene to ensure that the evidence collected is a solid construction that cannot be affected by recollection or human fault. During the process of taking the photos, specific critical steps need to be followed to ensure that the investigative team leaves no stone unturned. The investigators need to move systematically from outside as they make their way into the house while recording all that is seen and attaining their personal inferences to remember and to refer to later (The Forensics Library, n.d.). This will be of very great help in the next stage of decisive the origin location of the fire. The location of fire origin can tell much about the type and cause of fire and the state in which the house was before the fire outbreak. After locating the background, the investigating team begin the process of establishing the potential causes of the fire.

The team will be asking a series of questions such as whether the fire was accelerated, whether the were some faults in the wiring system, whether there was forced entry and whether the site was tampered with in any way. These questions could offer much assistance to the investigative team to tell what happened to the place that causes the fire outbreak and even give a lead to the potential arsonist if there was one. After establishing this, the investigative agency and the police departments can have enough evidence that they can use against the suspected arsonists in a court of law.

Strengths and Limitations

The judicial system has various advantages and weakness regarding the kind of forensic evidences presented and their use in the courts of law. First of all, among the limitations is lack of training. Fire detectives are considered expert eyewitnesses and therefore no don’t need education levels beyond high school. Diplomas and any other scientific training are always deemed not necessary in fire investigation(Dioso-Villa, 2013). This means that fire experts have got no other way of proving their higher-level knowledge apart from the experienced gained through a series of investigations. Other than experience. According to Lee’s journal, fire experts can be grouped into several categories depending on their qualifications. The first group comprises of graduates who have training in chemistry, engineering, and law courses.

The second group was formed according to the experience and specific number of years that the fire expert had been in the forensic fire department. The last grouping was done according to the need for thorough knowledge in the rules and regulations of a fire expert and specific requirements that one had to meet before becoming a fire expert. Despite the strict requirements, some rewards were given to particular individuals for possessing some qualities. The fire marshals who lack sufficient knowledge in the fire forensic science can find themselves on the wrong side of the defense team decided to take advantage of their naivety. This will bring in a limitation in the case in that certain pieces of evidence are not presented well because the investigating experts lack the necessary knowledge required to get the facts right but are somewhat depending on experience.

The different courts have different jurisdictions and different ruling standards hence making state to state testimonials and evidence submission difficult. The experience that a fire expert has gained before can be used as an advantage because it will give very easy time for the investigator to decide a case based on the experience. However, some instances keep changing and their prevailing situation may require that the experts be knowledgeable in the fire forensic science. Even though an experienced fire expert can outdo a learned, fellow, they can pose a problem when presenting a testimonial in court because they will ignore the various basic principles of fire forensic science, something that can be used against them by the defendant. The experienced untrained fellows will tend to present the testimonial in a way not interpretable by the defence and prosecution teams because they lack basic knowledge principles.

Fire investigation is opinion based and the person mandated to present the evidence before the court should do it more smartly so that he/she can convince everyone in that courtroom to believe his/her opinion regarding the proof. When an expert has no legal education background, he/she may fail to present the evidence in the right manner because they will be some element of ignorance on the primary fire legal principles and concepts. This will cause a lot of confusion in the courtroom and can lead to hindrance of justice.

With knowledge in forensic fire principles, making conclusions about the evidence provided by the experts becomes a very easy task because it will be apparent on what causes what when it comes to the evidence(Yuen, Yeoh, Alexander, & Cook, 2014), Most judges will tend to trust evidence supported with proper explanations and visual presentation This is a predominantly strong influence of fire examination. While these graphic representations other than misplaced statements gained from experience by experts. The forensic fire experts, therefore, need to restore the jury’s believe in the validity of the evidences they present before a court of law by backing the evidence with scientific explanations. Fire forensic science has got many benefits and limitations as earlier on discussed. The area is still growing and continues to change with time, and more studies can assist in furthering the knowledge of various experts allover the world.

Recommendations

Due the available strengths and weaknesses that are available in the fire and arson investigations, there are often several references that are daily being pursued to guarantee the best services from the department concerning cases that are taken before the courts to achieve justice to the victims. In the year 2009, the ‘National Academy of Sciences’ made public a statement on the general issue, strengths, and weaknesses with forensics science application in the department. Despite being regarded as a good step aimed at attaining overall unification, there still exist various gaps before forensic science is entirely integrated into the investigations. Majorly, there is a necessity of unity between all the territories and the states to enhance a high degree of openness within the investigating agency. Unified policies would additionally, e the courts to perform their function more efficiently within all territories and states in cases that happen along the borders.

Additionally, there would also be higher needs for tangible approaches to verify and reject certain situations. There appears to be more weight on explanations and great worth on skills contrary to a person with scientific acquaintance. More inquiries in fire and arson would imply that the detectives would reach an agreement to lower the subjectivity in scenarios with higher allowances for persons under investigation under a controlled environment rather than creating rules, or disapproving the policies and strategies that are obsolete and no longer necessary. Additionally, there is a necessity to enhance more training on experts to attain more excellent qualifications. Through incentives, for instance, pay increases and some benefits, the experts are motivated to carry out these investigations accurately and with more exceptional determinations. With high training and qualifications, there would be the present of the well-rounded department of fire investigators in addition to high perception and view on the use of forensic science to crack various fire incidences – finally, better assistance for caseloads as an all-encompassing aid for forensic sciences.

Fire and arson department frequently function within various forces, for instance, the police departments, and the councils putting too much pressure on the different sectors and the government because of the available constraints to ensure the multiple cases are cracked down and evidence submitted before the court. Extra Support and financing from the different departments would provide that much time and resources needed to be directed towards emerging and developing techniques of crime investigations. These approvals can be put into practice in various countries all over the world to enhance the smooth continuity and operations of the department. As a result of the ever-evolving know-hows and the emphasis on the escalating crime incidences, not t necessarily the accuracy and approval of the investigators, it is therefore essential to ascertain that the strengths and weaknesses of particular investigative organs are recognised. These limitations can be in the departments that investigate fire and arson.

Tools Used in Forensic Science and Their Effectiveness

The conventional method used in forensic Science is DNA matching. DNA Fingerprinting involves obtaining biological evidence from the crime scene, analyzing the DNA contents, and comparing it to a sample of DNA from the suspect. Where the DNA from the crime scene matches that of the suspect, then there is a high probability that the evidence came from the suspect (National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2009). However, is the DNA is different, the suspect could be blameless as the law enforcement looks for other pieces of evidence to get the main suspect. The biological samples include blood, hair, semen, or saliva, and the DNA structure removed and compared with that of the suspect.

This technique is operative because no two individuals can have the same DNA unless they are identical twins. In such a case, other approaches such as fingerprinting can help point detectives to the real suspect since, different DNA, identical twins may have comparable thumbprints by they are not the same. Peterson (2010) says that investigation into criminal cases specified that as of 2008, DNA fingerprinting was more operational than regular fingerprinting. For example, the explanation rates of property crimes doubled up with the gathering of DNA pieces of evidence and that it was more prospective for homicide cases with DNA samples to reach probationary than those lacking the samples. Furthermore, DNA fingerprinting is extra effective in employing proof databases since evaluation and matching lean towards providing a clear outcome, which rapidly enables detectives to discover other possibilities when the case is still fresh

The first type of evidence that forensic science presents is genetic evidence. They take the smallest parts of evidence such as hairs, saliva, and other small body tissues that could have been left behind by perpetrators (Lee, 1951). They then take the samples to the laboratory and associate the samples with the suspects. If the case does not have suspects, then they use the information to try and get the DNA matches from the government’s database. Genetic evidence is also crucial since it helps clear innocent suspects from the case. Through forensic science, the criminal justice system is also in a position to analyze physical evidence (Peterson, 2010). These include elements such as shoe prints, finger and handprints, blood spatter patterns, and fibre samples present at crime scenes. Another type of physical evidence revolves around the weapons used by the suspects. For instance, forensic science can help in identifying the specific kind of tool that was used in a crime scene by performing an analysis of the type and level of damage. From these, they are then in a position to determine a suspect’s role in the crime scene. There is also computer forensics who deal with machine-based evidence. They trace the activities from devices such as cell phones, computers, debit cards, etc. these, in turn, provide information on suspect’s actions. They can also use forensics to recreate a suspect’s searches and activities through the internet to reveal hidden details

Conclusion

Cases that would have been unmanageable to solve several years ago are now soluble thanks to forensic science. The field has been persistent in performing a vibrant role in criminal justice through the establishment of scientific data after the analysis of sensible submissions of crime. Forensic science necessitates that experts gather all the evidence that is available in a crime scene and then take it to the laboratory for analysis. It is frequently applied in many sectors of the criminal justice structure through the provision of diverse natures of evidence. The use of forensic science in criminal justice has given rise to a spectacular success of the latter as law enforcement can professionally get rid of the unknowns involving a case. For example, DNA sequencing, and facial construction can assist point detectives to probable suspects while an assessment nature of destruction can connect break-ins and arsons.

References

1. Dioso-Villa, R. (2013). Scientific and Legal Development in Fire and Arson Investigation Expertise in Texas v. Willingham. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 14(2), 817-848.
2. Gorbett, G. E., Meacham, B. J., Wood, C. B., & Dembsey, N. A. (2015). Use of damage in fire investigations: a review of fire patterns analysis, research and future direction. Fire Science Reviews.
3. Henneberg, M. L., & Morling, N. R. (2018). Unconfirmed accelerants: Controversial evidence on fire investigations. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 22(1), 45-67.
4. Lee, J.-l. (1951). Arson Investigation in Selected American Cities. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 42(2).
5. Lentini, J. J. (2012). The Evolution of Fire Investigation and Its Impacts on Arson Cases. Criminal Justice, 27(1).
6. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. National Research Council. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589.html
7. Peterson, J. L. (2010). The Role and Impact of Forensic Evidence in the Criminal Justice Process: Revised Final Report, 6-10-10. Los Angeles: California State University, School of Criminal Justice & Criminalistics.
8. Queensland Police Service. (2018). Fire and Arson Archives. Retrieved from myPolice Queensland Police News: https://mypolice.qld.gov.au/blog/category/arson/
9. Savage, J. J. (1957). Investigative Techniques Applied to Arson Investigation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 48(2).
10. The Forensics Library. (n.d.). Fire Investigation. Retrieved from https://aboutforensics.co.uk/fire-investigation/
11. Wakefield, A. E. (1951). Arson Investigation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 41(5).
12. Yuen, A., Yeoh, G., Alexander, B., & Cook, M. (2014). Fire scene investigation of an arson incident using computational fluid dynamics based simulation. 477-487.