Increased Scrutiny Reveals Forensic Processes Are Prone to Bias and Error

Crimes can happen at any time and place under varying circumstances. When crimes do occur, it is the responsibility of the investigators to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Some forms of evidence have a straightforward evaluation, such as photographic or video evidence. Others may require a higher level of sophistication, such as dusting for fingerprints, blood, skin cells, gunshot wounds, etc. After gathering evidence from the scene, investigative agencies will pack and label the evidence for forensic evaluation. 

Understanding Forensic Evaluation

Forensic evaluation is derived from forensic science, which describes various disciplines. According to criminal defense attorney Scott Bischoff of Adams & Bischoff, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) breaks down forensic science into 12 categories based on the type of evidence involved. These categories include general toxicology, firearms/tool marks, documents, trace evidence, controlled substances, biological/DNA evidence, arson debris analysis, impression evidence, blood pattern analysis, crime scene investigation, medical death investigations, and digital evidence.

While every discipline of forensic science has a different approach to evidence analysis, the primary duty of forensic experts is pattern analysis. Pattern analysis involves matching patterns from the evidence collected at the crime scene to a control sample and determining whether the samples match. A typical example could be investigators comparing impressions on a bullet casing from a gun that has been confiscated as evidence. Then, compare those impressions with impressions on a casing collected from a crime scene. This would be used to establish whether or not the gun was utilized in the crime.  

Possibility of Bias

Since experts conduct forensic analysis, its findings can greatly impact the juror’s decision-making process. There is no reason why the jurors would think twice about the evidence provided, given the intricate nature of evidence analysis involved. Also, nobody can blame them because the evidence is pretty convincing. Unfortunately, not many jurors know that forensic evidence may not be as reliable as it appears or as the experts want to have them believe. According to recent studies, thought processes during the analysis of evidence are not always influenced by logic and facts. Like any other person, experts can be affected by subconscious prejudice or bias, especially when navigating cases involving disfranchised, stigmatized, and marginalized groups. 

Existing Safeguards Not Sufficient

The criminal justice system has many safeguards and policies to minimize bias. However, these safeguards are not enough to prevent subconscious bias. According to a ten-year-old finding by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), no forensic analysis method can guarantee a high level of accuracy in demonstrating a connection between evidence and the person accused of a crime, except for DNA analysis. Unfortunately, the justice system continues to rely on these analysis methods without informing jurors of potential biases. This safeguarding keeps the jurors from improving how they look and analyze the evidence and, ultimately, their decision-making. Reliance on these methods has seen many people wrongly convicted with life-changing impacts on their lives.

The Role of Technology in Reducing Forensic Bias

Advancements in technology offer promising solutions to mitigate bias in forensic processes. Automated systems, such as machine learning algorithms, can analyze evidence with minimal human input, reducing the potential for subjective interpretation. Additionally, tools like blind testing protocols and enhanced validation standards help ensure forensic methods remain unbiased and scientifically reliable.

Finding a Solution

The first step to solving the bias problem is admitting there is a problem and implementing meaningful changes in light of the issues identified. However, there is hope for suspects and convicted individuals as courts declare some forms of forensic evidence as inadmissible. Also, states are changing laws that will allow for the relief of individuals who have been incarcerated through questionable evidence. Defense attorneys are also becoming more adept at challenging flaws in forensic evidence analysis, allowing the jurors to make a more informed decision. Hopefully, this trajectory will continue to minimize the chances of having people behind bars based on biased evidence-gathering methods.

Similar Stories