1

Hurley
Paige Hurley

Professor Tyler

ENG 1201

23 Mar. 2021

If someone were to be asked what forensic science is, many would probably be able to

say the basics because of TV shows, movies, or hearing others talk about it. This can cause

people to believe misconceptions about forensic science as a whole. Many times, people don’t

know all of the work and the processes that go behind the use of forensic science in the criminal

justice system. For the general public, the role of forensic science is not clear and a complex

topic that has many layers. Forensic science has been used for centuries, and since the start,

many advancements have been made which have changed forensics forever. Forensic science

plays a critical role in convicting criminals and aiding in exonerations by using a variety of

techniques, such as the extraction of DNA, when processing a crime scene. Even though human

error can occur the benefits of forensic science outweigh the risks.

The definition of forensic science is the use of “scientific knowledge, principles, analysis,

and practices to criminal investigation and legal cases” (“DNA Technology and Crime” 1). The

start of forensic science dates back to ancient Greek societies. The Incognito Forensic

Foundation explains, originally these societies focused on medicine and made significant

contributions that laid a base to some of the processes that are used today. Additionally, in

Roman empires, a basic form of forensic science was used to prove innocence. When looking

back at the legal system that was used during that time it faintly resembles the court and legal

system that is used today (1). Now, Forensic science includes a plethora of evidence including

toxicology, DNA, firearms, etc. All of these aspects of forensic science are used to help process a
2

Hurley
crime scene and be able to piece together everything in order to help solve crime. Even though

aspects of forensic science were used and studied earlier, a more modern version of forensics

became a large part of the criminal justice system in the 1960s (National Forensic Science

Technology Center 1). Forensic science is used for a multitude of reasons. Before forensic

science was relied upon during criminal investigations, cases relied on eye-witness testimony.

This form of evidence can be unreliable, and sometimes it can lead the investigation in the wrong

direction, so the use of forensic science became critical and a major part of the criminal justice

system.

One of the main reasons why forensic science is critical to the criminal justice system is

that it helps convict criminals. In order to convict someone and be able to show to a jury that a

specific person committed a crime there needs to be evidence. When a crime takes place there

are many different types of evidence that are left behind and could be used later in a trial. One of

the main pieces of evidence that is found at a scene is DNA. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic

acid, which is the genetic material that is unique to each person. There are a few different ways

that scientists are able to extract DNA, which includes bodily fluids, hair, etc. (“DNA

Technology and Crime” 1). After DNA is found at a scene it would be difficult for investigators

to find a match if a data system was not put together. In 1994, the Combined DNA Index

System, also known as CODIS, was created and is still used today. This database is nationwide

and provides the DNA of unidentified individuals as well as people who have committed serious

crimes (“DNA Technology and Crime” 3). In addition to DNA, there are other forms of evidence

such as bullet casings, bloodstains, footprints, and many more (NFSTC 1).

Many forms of evidence are used in order to fully solve a case. Another useful piece of

evidence that is used during investigations is fingerprinting. For over a century fingerprints have
3

Hurley
been the main piece of evidence found at crime scenes. The show, The Real CSI explains,

“scientists look for ridges loops, and whorls” when comparing fingerprints. With fingerprints,

they look to see how many points of an unknown print match up with a known print. Due to this,

there is some judgment is used to determine if enough points of the fingerprint match to make a

positive identification. This crucial piece of evidence allows them to connect a certain person to

the crime scene. In addition to DNA and fingerprints, there are many different kinds of evidence

that can be found at a crime scene and used to solve the crime. Many times, when people think of

evidence they do not think of video and audio, but these can be crucial to the investigative

process. Using eyewitness accounts can be unreliable causing the evidence to not be accurate, so

using a video or audio gives an investigator a timestamp to go off of (NFSTC 1). All of these

combined are used to figure out what happened and lead them to a suspect.

Due to the increasing use of forensic science, investigators and scientists have been able

to look back at cases that couldn’t be solved, and they are able to solve them now. Many

advancements have been made in this field of science that made it possible to solve old cases.

One of the main advancements that changed forensic science in a major way would be the

integration of labs as well as more testing in these labs. Originally when forensics started to

become used more in the criminal justice system labs were not as common as they are now. Once

forensics started to pick up momentum the need for labs and more testing became apparent.

Implementing labs and testing allowed this field of science to advance and be used more to solve

crime. Another main advancement that has been made would be in the technology used. Overall

technology as a whole has advanced throughout the years. Without technology in these labs, it

would be difficult to process all of the evidence that they need to. Now with these different

technological advancements, these processes have become more efficient and more accurate as
4

Hurley
the years have gone on. Today, labs are able to identify trace amounts of blood, hair, etc. to help

solve crime and identify what happened (National Institute of Justice 4).

One example where investigators were able to solve a case with the advancements made

would be the capture of the Golden State Killer. Starting in the mid-1970s through the mid-1980s

the Golden State Killer terrorized a community and was not caught during this time period. In an

article by Christi J. Guerrini, Jill O. Robinson, Devon Peterson, and Amy L. McGuire, they

explained that the process behind finding the Golden State Killer was complex and a long

process. After investigators had followed leads but came up empty-handed, they decided to try a

different approach. In order to limit the number of suspects, they decided to try a process where

they would identify the perpetrator’s family by using the DNA that was found at the scene. After

years of trying to find a connection, investigators were able to identify Joseph James DeAngelo

as the perpetrator of these crimes, and DeAngelo was officially arrested on April 24, 2018, after

decades of searching (1-2).

Another example of a case that was solved because of forensic science is the Night

Stalker. An article written by the editors at History.com explains, In the mid-1980s investigators

in Los Angeles were trying to figure out who the Night Stalker was but struggled to come up

with any leads. One day a teenager had spotted a suspicious-looking vehicle and they recorded

the license plate number. The teenager contacted the police and gave them the license plate

number. The police followed up on this lead and they spotted the car, but no one was inside of

the vehicle. Even though no one was in the car the police were able to gather some evidence

including some fingerprints inside of the car. After trying to find a match they were finally able

to identify the fingerprints. These fingerprints helped the investigators identify the Night Stalker

as Richard Ramirez. Without the use of fingerprinting there is a possibility, that police and
5

Hurley
investigators would not have been able to solve the case when they did (1). In some criminal

cases, just a few pieces of evidence can be crucial enough to help solve a case. This case proves

that without forensic science it would be almost impossible to be able to process and solve crime

scenes.

On the other hand, forensic science can also be used to exonerate people who have been

wrongly convicted. Many times, when forensics is talked about people focus on how forensics

convicts criminals, but that isn’t always the case. Forensic can go both ways and prove someone

wasn’t at a crime scene. Sometimes new evidence or evidence that was overlooked before can be

brought to court after the trial has already begun or that person has already been convicted. For

evidence to be used to exonerate someone it goes through the same process as convicting

someone. The evidence goes through extensive testing and is looked at by many different people.

From here they use the new evidence to make an argument and sometimes it is enough to

overturn a case. In cases like these, it can be life-changing when new evidence is brought forth.

One organization that focuses on proving peoples’ innocence is the Innocence Project.

This project was started back in 1992 by two public defenders in New York, and they believed

that if you can use evidence to prove someone is guilty you can also use that evidence to prove

someone is innocent. In the first year of the Innocence Project, they were able to exonerate ten

people, and the number continued to grow as the organization grew. This organization has

continued to grow, and since September 2019 they have been able to exonerate 367 people

(“DNA Technology and Crime” 3). This organization continues to work to free people whose

lives have been changed and to bring them to justice.

One of the many cases that the Innocence Project has worked on would be the case

involving Kenneth Adams. Adams along with three other men were tried and convicted of
6

Hurley
murder on October 1, 1978. Adams was sentenced to seventy-five years in prison. In the trial,

there was an informant that said that they heard these men talking about how they committed

crime. For the jury, this was compelling evidence and caused them to convict Adams. Kenneth

Adams served eighteen of his seventy-five-year sentence before the new evidence was able to

prove that he was not the perpetrator. On July 2, 1996, Adams was officially exonerated because

new DNA evidence proved that he did not commit the crime. This new evidence also proved

who the real perpetrators were. Criminal cases that involve conviction or exoneration are life-

changing and affect a countless number of people (Adam Celebrates 1).

Another example from the Innocence Project is a case involving Randolph Arledge.

Arledge and three other guys were originally apprehended for a robbery charge, and because of

this, the two other guys said that Arledge had killed a woman that was found earlier. After this

Arledge had a trial and was convicted of murder on March 27, 1984, and was sentenced to

ninety-nine years in prison. Arledge served twenty-nine years in prison before the case and

evidence were looked at again. It was concluded that the samples found at the scene excluded

Arledge and the evidence pointed to another felon named David Sims. Even after all of that time,

investigators were able to use the forensics of the case to prove the innocence of Randolph

Arledge (Arledge Celebrates 1).

7

Hurley

In the graph above, provided by the Innocence Project, depicts reasons why people have been

wrongly convicted. Wrongful convictions can have more than one cause, and they differ from

case to case. Those reasons include eyewitness misidentification, invalid/improper forensics,

false confessions/admissions, and informants/snitches.

In cases that the Innocence project work on there are a variety of reasons why that person

was wrongly convicted. In the case of Kenneth Adams, he was misidentified by eye-witness

testimony. This can be a problem in many cases that go through a trial. In the case involving

Randolph Arledge, the two other guys said to the investigators that Arledge had committed a

crime that had been discovered earlier. Both of the guys said Arledge did it in order to get a plea

bargain, which is where they were able to get a lesser sentence since they gave information on a

case that was being worked on.

When it comes to both kinds of cases the outcome of a trial deeply affects the families

that are involved. When a family is a victim of a crime all they want is for justice to be served.

Seeing the person that committed an awful act go away for what they did provides closure to the

family of the victim. This doesn’t make the pain go away, but it allows the family to start the
8

Hurley
grieving process knowing that this person is going to serve time for what they did and the harm

that they caused. Many times, it is difficult for families to watch the trial because it brings up all

of the painful memories (Irazola et al. 3). On the flip side of this if a family watches a member of

their family go away it can be just as difficult. That person won’t be a part of everyday life like

they used to, and that can change how a family operates. When this occurs, it can cause family

problems and each person of the family is affected differently. Either way, trials can completely

change families as a whole and can have a lasting effect on the family forever.

Not only do trials affect the families involved they can also affect the community as a

whole. In a trial similar to the Golden State killer the outcome of the trial can affect the

community altogether. Having someone like Joseph DeAngelo out in a community caused

extreme terror among an entire population. This kind of anxiety and stress can change the day-to-

day life of an entire community. Forensic science is critical to the safety and wellbeing of

communities. If people like Joseph DeAngelo were never able to be caught communities would

never be able to feel safe, and forensic science provides a way for investigators to solve crime

and keep communities safe. People think that cases like these will never happen around them,

and for a case, this big to happen near them makes it even scarier. In this particular case, it went

unsolved for decades and completely changed the community for that period of time.

Finally, the individuals involved in trials are greatly affected. After someone has been in

prison many find it difficult to repair relationships with friends and family and many of them

struggle to find employment opportunities. After being in prison many people find it difficult to

get back the life that they had before the conviction. On the flip side, a perspective that is not

talked about a lot is the feelings that victims go through after the supposed perpetrator was

exonerated. In a study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, victims were asked how
9

Hurley
they felt after the accused was exonerated and many said that they felt a tremendous amount of

guilt following the exoneration. Some explained the feeling that in the original trial they were the

victim and, in the trial, to exonerate the accused they felt that the roles were reversed, and they

had become the “bad guy” of the trial. They also found that “Some of the victims felt that the

media insinuated that they had intentionally misidentified the wrongfully convicted individuals”

(2). Both parties during these trials are greatly affected and this can change their lives forever.

Even though forensic science has been used in many cases for years some people still

believe that forensics isn’t reliable for a conviction in court. These people are concerned that the

evidence that is found wasn’t found in the correct way, and it would lead to false convictions.

One main contributor to the misconception around forensic science is how this field of science is

portrayed in movies and TV shows. These forms of media glamorize this process and typically

do not show what it is truly like in real life. Without proper representation, the general public

will not fully understand how forensic science works and will continue to be skeptical unless

proved otherwise. Even through all of this the positives that come out of forensic science being

used in the criminal justice system outweigh the possible negatives.

One reason why forensic science is reliable is that this process that occurs is not a

one-step process done by one person. In movies and TV shows, cases are completed and fully

finished within a couple of days, but in real life, this is not a reality. Before evidence is used in

court whether that be to convict or to exonerate someone it goes through a multitude of steps.

First, when a crime first takes place police officers as well as crime scene investigators (CSI), are

typically the first ones at the crime scene. The CSIs will photograph the crime scene which

allows them to be able to look back at them later throughout the process. In addition to photos,

they will collect all of the evidence that is found, such as blood, at the crime scene (Cediel &
10

Hurley
Bergman). All of this evidence found will be sent to a lab for testing and analysis. Next, once

evidence is sent to the lab it will go through many different people and many tests. Having many

people look at the evidence helps make sure that errors do not happen. At this stage, the results

of the tests are interpreted and will be handed off to other professionals to look at and use in the

investigating process. Finally, after the evidence is collected and processed it can be used in a

trial. The results from the lab are used to piece together what happened at the crime scene. In an

interview of Mark Safarik, a former FBI agent in the Behavioral Analysis Unit, he explained that

many times agents and investigators will testify during a trial about the evidence found. They

will explain how the evidence that was found led them to the conclusion that they made (Safarik

1). Many times, they help the jury of a trial understand the evidence being used in the trial so that

they can make the most informed decision.

Another reason why forensic science is reliable is that procedure and protocol have

become stricter over the years. When forensic science started to be used there wasn’t much

information known about the topic, which caused problems to occur. During a criminal

investigation, strict protocols are used. There are specific guidelines on how evidence is

collected, where certain evidence goes, paperwork that needs to be filled out, and much more.

When these guidelines were put into place it was meant to help decrease the chance the evidence

becomes tainted or that evidence gets overlooked in a trial because the procedure was not

properly followed during the investigation.

The portrayal of forensic science in movies and TV shows is not a complete

representation of the process in real life, and this can cause people to believe misconceptions that

are found in these types of media. Many people were skeptical of forensic science when it started

to become prominent in the criminal justice system around the 1960s, but since then there have
11

Hurley
been many advancements that have caused forensic science to be widely used. Advancements in

technology as well as the protocols and procedures that are followed have made the process of

forensic science more efficient and reliable. Due to these advancements, forensic science can be

used for a multitude of reasons such as convicting a criminal to exonerating someone who has

been wrongly accused. The use of forensic science has completely changed the way that criminal

cases are dealt with, and how evidence is used in criminal trials. Due to all of this, it proves that

forensic science plays a critical role in the criminal justice system in a multitude of ways.
12

Hurley
Works Cited

Cediel, Andres and Lowell Bergman. The Real CSI. Frontline, 17, Apr. 2017.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/real-csi/ . Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

Crime Lab Report. “Forensic Technology Has Been Wrongly Criticized as Unscientific.”

Forensic Technology, edited by Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven Press, 2011. Current

Controversaries. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://go-gale-

com.sinclair.ohionet.org/ps/retrieve.do?

tabID=Viewpoints&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&hit

Count=32&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=10&docId=GALE

%7CEJ3010708213&docType=Viewpoint+essay&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZX

AY-MOD1&prodId=OVIC&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE

%7CEJ3010708213&searchId=R4&userGroupName=dayt30401&inPS=true. Accessed 7

Mar. 2021.

"DNA Technology and Crime." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Gale

In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999025/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=1d55d623. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

Guerrini, Christi J., et al. “Should Police Have Access to Genetic Genealogy Databases?

Capturing the Golden State Killer and Other Criminals Using a Controversial New

Forensic Technique.” PLoS Biology, vol. 16, no. 10, Oct. 2018, pp. 1–9. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2006906. Accessed 26 Mar. 2021.

“Kenneth Adams Celebrates 23 Years of Freedom .” Innocence Project, 1 July 2019,

https://innocenceproject.org/cases/kenneth-adams/# . Accessed 26 Mar. 2021.

13

Hurley
“Los Angeles Mob Attacks ‘Night Stalker’ Serial Killer.” History.com, A&E Television

Networks, 13 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/los-angeles-mob-attacks-

night-stalker. Accessed 26 Mar. 2021.

National Institute of Justice. “The Impact of Forensic Science Research and Development.”

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248572.pdf . Apr. 2015. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

NFSTC. “A Simplified Guide to Crime Scene Investigation”

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org. National Forensic Science Technology Center,

Sep. 2013. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

“Randolph Arledge Celebrates Six Years of Freedom.” Innocence Project, 3 May 2019,

innocenceproject.org/cases/randolph-arledge/. Accessed 26 Mar. 2021.

Safarik, Mark. Interview by Fiona Guy. 31 Aug. 2017,

https://www.crimetraveller.org/2017/08/an-interview-with-mark-safarik/ . Accessed 7

Mar. 2021.

Seri Irazola Erin Williamson Julie Stricker Emily Niedzwiecki, et al. “Addressing the Impact of

Wrongful Convictions on Crime Victims.” National Institute of Justice,

“The History of Forensic Science and It's Evolution.” IFF Lab, 14 Aug. 2018, ifflab.org/history-

of-forensic-science/. Accessed 26 Mar. 2021.