d834fab5860d5cf4b3949fecf86d3328

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

By Roger Koppl

Project Director: Adrian T. Moore, Ph.D.

December 2007

CSIf o r real:

How to Improve forenSICS SCIenCe

POLICY

STUDY

364

Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation\u2019s mission is to advance a free society by developing,
applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty,
free markets, and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy

research to in\ue001uence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists,

and opinion leaders.

Reason Foundation\u2019s nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice,
competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human
dignity and progress. Reason produces rigorous, peer-reviewed research and
directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that emphasize cooper-

ation, \ue001exibility, local knowledge, and results. Through practical and innova-

tive approaches to complex problems, Reason seeks to change the way people

think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individuals

and voluntary institutions to \ue001ourish.

Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt research and education organization as
de\ue000ned under IRS code 501(c)(3). Reason Foundation is supported by volun-
tary contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations. The views

are those of the author, not necessarily those of Reason Foundation or its

trustees.

Copyright \u00a9 2007 Reason Foundation. All rights reserved.

Reason Foundation

CSI for Real: How to Improve Forensic

Science

By Roger Koppl

Project Director: Adrian T. Moore

Executive Summary

merican television viewers of popular programs such asCSI would be led to think that the

forensic science lab is a bastion of white-coated scientists whose empirical and unbiased
results are virtually always reliable and beyond significant dispute. A forensic scientist testifying
that an accused in a criminal trial is the source of the evidence analyzed and interpreted at the
scientist\u2019s lab can leave a jury strongly convinced that the scientist\u2019s conclusions are
unimpeachable confirmation of the defendant\u2019s guilt. The actual quality of such testimony,
unfortunately, is often quite different; in the wake of DNA exonerations, the reliability of forensic
testing and testimony have come under extensive critical examination and have been found to be
limited, in large part due the forensic lab\u2019s monopoly status.

Forensic error occurs at significant rates\u2014both unconsciously and consciously (fraud)\u2014because
the current institutional structure of forensic science discourages the discovery of truth. In pure
science, results are scrutinized by other scientists and subjected to criticism, review\u2014and
reproduction. The rule-governed, competitive process of pure science does not obtain, however, in
most forensic labs where results are subject to little or no public or peer review.

Several factors contribute to the unreliability of forensic science labs, including:

\ue000

Monopoly. Most forensic labs in the United States and elsewhere hold a monopoly on the

evidence that will not be reviewed or interpreted by any other. Thus, the forensic practitioner

has less incentive than the pure scientist to avoid sloppy or even fraudulent work.

\ue000

Dependence bias. Because most forensic labs are organized within law enforcement agencies,

they are dependent upon these agencies for their budgets and are in an institutional relationship

that leads to a pro-prosecution bias.

A

of 00

Leave a Comment