Category: Forensic science

Forensic data recovery is the science and art of retrieving or getting back information from a mobile device, computer, and any other electronic media that was damaged, lost, deleted, or hidden (Casey, 2011). Forensic data recovery is different from other processes of data recovery in terms of the method used, but the results are the same. With forensic data recovery, objectives are laid out from the word go since it is not well examined and adequately dealt with claims can be compromised. Forensic data recovery is unique as it deals with legal matters and therefore needed in court. It is done by specialists who acquire, isolate, and report on electronic evidence and digital media (Breeuwsma et al., 2007).

One of the techniques utilized by forensic data recovery is file carving, which excerpts data from a storage device with no need for the file system that created the file initially. It recovers files and data in an unallocated space with no file information in data recovery (Richard, Roussev, & Marziale, 2007). Unallocated space is the area in the drive, then no longer has any file information. It is most useful when data or file is damaged or goes missing. Most file systems do not entirely remove data when it is deleted; instead, it removes the knowledge of where it is placed. This mechanism reconstructs files by scanning the raw disk bytes and brings them together (Povar & Bhadran, 2010). This involves only a few first and last bytes. Most legal cases that depend on this mechanism are child pornography, where experts recover more images from users’ hard disks.

File recovery is different from file carving. Operating systems currently in the market do not remove a deleted file without requesting confirmation by the user. Deleted files are recovered using forensic programs if the erased file space is not overwritten by another archive. Any file that is damaged is only recoverable if data is not corrupted more than a minimal degree (Cohen, 2007). File recovery and file restoration are different since a backup file stored in an encoded form is restored to its decoded form. File recovery mechanisms use file system information and using this information, many of the deleted or damaged files can be recovered. Whenever information is incorrect, then it cannot work.

File carvings can only work on raw data on the media, and it is not linked with the file system structure. File carving is not concerned with any file systems that are used for storing files. For example, the FAT file system is a file that is deleted then the file directory entry is moved to unallocated space (Povar & Bhadran, 2010). The filename’s first character is substituted with a marker, but the file data itself is left unmoved. The information is present until it is overwritten. All this recovery is possible since file system stores retrieve, and updates files. File carving however has two issues. One is that without a file system the original name of the file cannot be discovered and second when a file is stored in a contiguous chunk which is appropriate for large files this technique is not able to recover the complete file,

References

1. Breeuwsma, M., De Jongh, M., Klaver, C., Van Der Knijff, R., & Roeloffs, M. (2007). Forensic data recovery from flash memory. Small Scale Digital Device Forensics Journal, 1(1), 1-17.
2. Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers, and the internet. Academic Press.
3. Cohen, M. I. (2007). Advanced carving techniques. Digital Investigation, 4(3-4), 119-128.
4. Povar, D., & Bhadran, V. K. (2010, October). Forensic data carving. International Conference on Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime (pp. 137-148). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
5. Richard, G., Roussev, V., & Marziale, L. (2007, January). In-place file carving. In IFIP International Conference on Digital Forensics (pp. 217-230). Springer, New York, NY.

Introduction

Forensics is a key role in the criminal justice system which is nationally recognised in Britain. It is used as scientific evidence in the court of law to support the prosecution or defence in a criminal case. (The Telegraph, 2018, Sandra H) Within the last 40 years forensic science has gloomed in the eye of the public and has even made fashionable television to people. Forensics is the scientific study of crime and without it, it becomes increasingly hard to solve a case. Within the last 10 years there has been an increase in forensic backlog in Britain. This also includes forensic DNA, which is used in the national DNA database which has also been having a major backlog in cases. (The Herald, 2016) The DNA helps an investigator, to help find or illuminate previous offenders. Hundreds of offences have gone unsolved for up to a decade due to the delay in loading profiles. Helen Wicker, the forensic analyst has stated in a recent report that almost 6,000 DNA profiles still haven’t been loaded to this day. (March 2018, London) David Davis, the shadow home secretary, states: ‘This latest shambles further undermines the integrity of the DNA database and reinforces our calls for a parliamentary debate about the system.’ (2017) showing a big scare for the nation and asking big questions as to why this topic has arose.

This essay will cover the problems within the forensic backlog and the solutions which can be involved to help rectify these issues. Linking it heavily to the social harms that are also affected by this and the types of solutions I think that will help rectify these problems.

What is the importance of forensics within the Criminal Justice System?

Forensic science plays a vital role in the criminal justice system by providing scientifically based information through the analysis of physical evidence. (National Insti-tute of Justice, 2017 ) During an investigation, evidence is collected, analysed in a laboratory and then the results presented in court. Each crime scene is unique, and each case presents its own challenges. (J. Sara, April 26, 2018) Without the applica-tion of forensic science, criminals can never be convicted unless an eyewitness is present. While detectives and law enforcement agencies are involved in the collec-tion of evidence, be it physical or digital, it is forensic science that deals with the analysis of those evidence in order to establish facts admissible in the court of law. Thus in a world devoid of forensic science, murderers, thieves, drug traffickers and rapists would be roaming scot-free. (2017, Kate Huslet)

What are the problems that we are faced with?

Data shows from last year (2017) that police close a surprisingly 47% of cases because no suspect is identified. Even more surprisingly, 34% of this DNA has been found but just hasn’t been put through the DNA database, making it impossible to link suspects or illuminate suspects from a case. (Emma Wright, 9th Feb 2018) Forensic analysis alone can be very time-consuming. Evidence isn’t tested straight away for DNA to link a suspect to a crime. Evidence is firstly screened to determine whether any biological material is present and what type is it. Only then will DNA testing be undertaken in a case. Also, some samples can be tricky to analyse. Some samples can be degraded as fragmented or may contain DNA from multiple suspects. (Dan L. Burk , pp. 53-85, 1997) Naturally, the time taken for finding evidence against a suspect takes a long time. Even longer if there is a backlog of cases. However, the actual lab part of this crisis isn’t the main contributor to a long wait in forensic DNA. (Merton, 2017) It’s the starting of the process by the police. It’s been known in the UK that the chain of custody of evidence can sometimes be relaxed in the police force. Dr Gillian Tulley warns in her new report of 2018, that ‘if guidance is not followed as a matter of urgency, contamination could compromise evidence or mislead courts’. She also goes on to say, ‘police forces must not treat quality standards for forensic science as an optional extra and nor must others be delivering forensic science in the Criminal Justice System.’ The regulator found there is still a significant risk of DNA contamination in police custody. For example, an officer carrying evidence back to the forensic lab in his car stopping off to get some food, leaving the vehicle unattended. There is easy access for someone to tamper with the evidence or for it to be cross-contaminated if not bagged up properly. Situations like this are massively penalised in court and you will be heavily questioned about your actions. A lot of untested evidence is also stored and left in the law enforcement rooms. Most of the time lab technicians are unaware of evidence that needs to be tested as they haven’t been informed. Two-thirds of England’s crown court cases failed to go ahead on the day they were due to start. (The Telegraph, 2017) The national audit office (NAO) claims the criminal justice system was ‘not delivering value for money’ and explained how the total amount of this added up to £21 million which was spent by the crown prosecution service on cases which were never actually heard in court. The NAO also found a backlog of more than 51,00 cases that had built up in the crown courts. It is important to get the information from the laboratories as effectively and efficiently to the court room. Daubert in his book states ‘there are important differences between the quest for truth in the courtroom and the quest for truth in the laboratory (Backlog of Forensics and its Damming Effect, p. 2798, 2017). And that is something that is not being done quickly enough.

What is the solution?

Overseeing some of these issues that I have found in the forensic backlog, opens up my eye to the fact there isn’t a real structure put in place. A sense of organisation needs to be put in, so the operation of the forensics team can run smoothly. A theory linked to this is the ‘bakhtinian process’ which was discovered by Russian philosopher Mikhail (1937). This theory focuses on the strains generated by the existing norms. The change is introduced to stop these strains upon people of the reaction to those strains. (Werner and Baxter 1994) this reaction is always a positive one to ensure organisation and stability is put in place. I really feel the police and forensics workers should take a look into this theory to help them gather up new ideas and structure. They could think about a set of rules and guidelines to always follow in cases. Sourcing through the home offices new reports within the last 2 months I came across a more positive outlook on this criminal justice problem. In a report they stated ‘procedures have been strengthened to ensure that all forensic laboratories must submit weekly and monthly reports on DNA profiles that are unable to be loaded.’ I managed to source and think of other types of solutions. I thought about focusing on re-evaluating the procedures and seeking out the inefficiencies. Closely looking at where the bottlenecks are happening, so they can address them. This can be achieved by reviewing and challenging the current process, asking questions such as ‘does this system accurately fit what we wish to achieve?’ and ‘do all staff members have the right qualifications and level of training to complete the tasks before them?’ I also feel ploughing in more time and money into this would help motivate the people working to work to there highest standard. Hertzberg’s two-factor theory supports this outlook. This look into the factors that lead to satisfaction and motivate employees to work harder. Examples include feeling organised and career progression. Another solution would be to prioritise what’s more important when it comes through. If you have petty theft or a rape case and both need solving. Naturally start with the one that’s a more serious crime. A lot less people will be frustrated or annoyed. I would gather in more staff who specify in certain areas. This takes the pressure off the technicians and will ultimately be a lot quicker to get DNA evidence sorted. Also, re-train existing staff. This helps give them a refresher of what’s expected of them. It also gives them a boost to do to well and work efficiently. Re-check in of what’s expected of you and always keep in contact with the police about the case you are working on. This helps to stop confusion and to know what you are trying to find or eliminate.

Social harms effected by the Forensic backlog

Suspects re-offending whilst on bail

One of the major concerns for the social harms of society is that suspects typically re-offend whilst they are on bail. 75% of people who are arrested are released from police custody within just only 6 hours of being questioned and 95% are released within 24 hours. (Professor Brent Fisse, 2018) As the forensics aren’t being dealt with quick enough this leads to the suspects being let out. More then 350 murders were committed by people on bail over the last 5 years states the telegraph (23rd November 2018, Laura Picketts). Statistics show that one killing per week could have been prevented if the ‘criminal justice system did their job’ states Randal Simmons in a recent report. In October 2011 a man called Jonathan Vass was jailed for 30 years with the chance of parole after murdering his ex-girlfriend while on bail for the rape of her. This is one of many shocking cases I have come across. If he was tested there and then for his DNA he would have been found guilty within hours. Instead he was let out and then murdered her.

Solution

Keep the suspects in custody for the full 24 hours, instead of letting them out after 6 in some cases. Be thorough with their questioning. Come together with other before questioning an ascertain what type of information you want out of the person. This links in very well with the theory of ‘good cop, bad cop’. The ‘bad cop’ will always take an aggressive and negative stance towards the suspect in custody. Making accusations and sometimes threatening them. This sets a good presence to have a ‘good cop’ put in place. They would normally act sympathic towards the suspect, appearing somewhat supportive to them and in a lot of cases will defend the suspect to the bad cop. The person in custody usually feels co-operative towards the good cop out of trust, or sometimes feel obliged to say something out of fear of the ‘bad cop’. If the cases are more serious like murder, rape or violent abuse the police can apply to hold you up 36 or 96 hours which gives them more time to gather the evidence or facts. When on bail the police should give everyone a curfew that the suspect should abide by.

Witnesses

Due to the long wait of cases being heard and in a lot of cases not even having the chance to be heard, witnesses and victims were failed by the criminal justice system. Only 55% of those would have been a witness in the courtroom say they would not be prepared to come back and do so again, due to the lack of support they had. This is an outstanding statistic that would envitably damage a case.( Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman (1999) Witnesses are a key part of a court case and will help the judge make a decision whether someone is guilty or not. Without that put in place a lot of cases would ultimately fail. An average 134 day wait between the case leaving the magistrates court and the start of the crown court hearing was on a 99-day average to a 2 year wait. As you can imagine this had a recurring impact on many aspects within the criminal justice system.

Solutions

The biggest solution I would introduce here is keeping the witnesses up to date with what is going on. In some case’s you can’t help the delay of the evidence some-times and therefore a witness may have to wait around a lot longer then they would plan to. Also giving a witness a run though of what to expect at court, what types of questions they may be asked. This will help them stay at ease before a trial. Linking this all into the theory of emotions. More specifically the James-Lange theory of emotion. This theory suggests that when you see an external stimulus that leads to a physiological reaction. Your emotional reaction is dependent upon how you interpret those physical reactions. For example, being held back and not kept in the loop about the case you are being a witness for can have a negative effect on you. If you feel you aren’t being treated right, then your physical emotions will stop you from helping others in a case.

Social media

As discussed, prior, due to back-log of forensic evidence there is a major knock on effect. We have potential suspects in custody, that may have some evidence against them but without someone going to trial and being prosecuted properly you will not know of someone’s innocence or guilt. The human right’s act states ‘innocent until proven guilty’ Many suspects are labelled as ‘guilty’. Social media like anything is a great way to get cases out there but is also very damaging to people and their lives. The major problem with social media and suspects is that social media will portray someone as guilty when they haven’t been found guilty yet. In 2010, just before Christmas a 25-year-old woman Joanna Yeates went missing from her home and then later was found murder. Social media went crazy over this story once they discovered who her landlord was. This man was called Chris Jefferies, a former teacher. Due to a lot of newspapers and social media posts he was labelled as ‘weird’, ‘creepy’, ‘strange’ and was prodomently known as the man responsible for her death. Upon being arrested and questioned for a few days he was then released as there was no evidence against him. The British public still portrayed him as guilty. A few months later the real murder was found guilty. It was a younger man who didn’t ‘look’ particualiy weird. He didn’t make any front pages in this story. This is just one case of many others where, the waiting around of evidence to come though from the labs has given the social media time to give the wrong person attention in the public eye.

Solutions

Stop the media from having coverage on people in custody. There should be a guide put in place if someone is writing a piece on a case to not be biased or influential to the reader. I also thin it’s something that the public need to deal with too. They shouldn’t believe everything they read or allow there opinion to be swayed.

The scientific method is the steps used to ask questions and develop sufficient data to answer the question. The scientific method provides steps in which to follow when testing a hypothesis or theory. The researcher through his and her, standardized steps they can observe, and developed a hypothesis or theory, and answers can be found. Forensic science applies science helps to developing evidence that help in civil or criminal cases. Forensic science comes in many disciplines each applying the scientific method to developing evidence that will point to the guilt or the innocence of the criminal offender in question, this helps in curtailing the humanistic aspects of prejudice and bias during the consideration of the set theories and hypothesis.

In the past, the scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. However, under careful consideration and slight modifications, the scientific methods are now used in forensic science and incorporated into the criminal investigation science (Becker, 2009).

The scientific method is comprised of four steps:

1. observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena;
2. formulation of a hypothesis (or hypotheses) to explain the phenomena;
3. use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations; and
4. performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.” (Wolfs, 2007, 3.)

Observation and Description of A Phenomenon Or A Group Of Phenomena

The first step involved in the scientific method is the observation and description of a phenomenon or a group of phenomena. The forensic examiner must observe an incident or situation. How this scientific method step relates to forensic science would be, for example, in a crime scene investigation involving ballistics. The observation would be of a bullet impression in an environment. Perhaps the defense in the case would rise in their legal argument that the defendant could not possibly have murdered the victim given the point of entry and point of exit wounds or the type of bullet involved. The forensic examiner on the case may have the responsibility of disputing this claim. Forensic ballistic examination in criminal cases is not limited solely to ballistics, rather encompasses bloodstain pattern analysis as well involving projectile. The following paragraph will discuss the formulation of a hypothesis.

Formulation of A Hypothesis (Or Hypotheses) To Explain the Phenomena

The second step involved in the scientific method is the formulation of a hypothesis (or hypotheses to explain the phenomena. Essentially, this is the framing of a question or theory around the incident. Perhaps there is a particular firearm in question or perhaps the firearm is undetermined at this juncture. The forensic examiner would then determine whether or not the bullet came from a particular gun in question. Tool mark and firearm examinations would be conducted to determine, consisting of analysis of ammunition, tool mark and firearm evidence, to establish whether the weapon in question was employed during the commission of the crime in question. Trajectory paths would also be examined to conduct the bullet’s route. The following paragraph will discuss the usage of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena or to quantitatively predict new observation results.

Use of The Hypothesis to Predict The Existence Of Other Phenomena, Or To Predict Quantitatively The Results Of New Observations

The third step involved in the scientific method is the use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. The hypothesis is the “tentative answer to the question: a testable explanation for what was observed.” (Carter, 1996, 13.) The forensic examiner or scientist attempts to explain what has been observed. This cause and effect relationship, the hypothesis is the possible cause, while the observation is the effect. This is not to be confused with a generalization, as a generalization is based on inductive reasoning. The hypothesis is the potential account for the observation. (Carter, 1996, 15.) Forensic scientists and all scientists in general:

“build on the work of previous researchers, and one important part of any good research is to first do a literature review to find out what previous research has already been done in the field. Science is a process — new things are being discovered and old, long-held theories are modified or replaced with better ones as more data/knowledge is accumulated.” (Carter, 1996, 19.)

Science is a continually evolving discipline involving ongoing research. Oftentimes experts have presented erroneous opinions, which must be challenged. The following paragraph will discuss the importance of experimental tests conducted by several independent experimenters.

Performance of Experimental Tests of The Predictions By Several Independent Experimenters

The fourth and final step involved in the scientific method is the performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters. This aspect actually denotes whether or not the hypothesis is supported by the results. Once the experimentation has been conducted and predicted results achieved, the hypothesis is reflected to be plausible. The experiment must be a controlled experiment performed by several independent experimenters. The forensic examiners, scientists must “contrast an ‘experimental group’ with a ‘control group.’” (Carter, 1996, 15.) The replication aspect, several experiments, is critical. The experimentation should be attempted various times on various subjects. This is imperative to determine that a result is not simply coincidental, rather intended, and certain.

Forensics science is critical in the application to law and legal questions as justice is hinging on steadfast and accurate results. Fortunately, science and technology have vastly improved in recent years to reduce the number of erroneous indictments and convictions for the innocent. Likewise, this discipline is reaching perfection in that an offender or culprit is almost certain to be apprehended given the likelihood that minute strands of trace evidence is almost always located at the scene of a crime.

Striving for excellence is oftentimes accompanied by adversity, as in Galileo’s stance; according to Bergman, “the actual threat of Galileo to his contemporary scientists was less his position on heliocentricity than his insistence on observation, research, and experimentation to determine reality. It was for this reason that G. A. Magnini, an eminent astronomy professor at Bologna, openly declared that Galileo’s observations, which indicated that Jupiter had satellites, and must be incorrect. Although the scientific revolution emerged gradually, and many of Galileo’s ideas can be traced to before the thirteenth century, Galileo openly challenged the whole system of determining truth that existed then, and therein lay most of his problems” (Bergman, 2004, 20.)

Conclusion

This essay has discussed the four steps of the scientific method in relationship to forensic science, providing examples of how each step is incorporated into the process during a criminal investigation. The accuracy of the findings of forensic examination is critical in the public’s reliance and the credibility of the criminal justice process. It is important that evidence is not compromised for these experts to perform their craft with conviction.

References

1. Bergman, J. (2004). The Great Galileo Myth. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from A.D.A.M. Web site: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm
2. Becker, R. F. (2009). Criminal Investigation. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning
3. Carter, J. (1996). The Scientific Method. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from University of Cincinnati Web site: http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
4. Wolfs, F. (2007). Appendix E. Introduction to the Scientific Method. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from University of Rochester Web site: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

When a crime has been committed the factor of handwriting, fingerprints, and DNA are used in a process which looks to confirm the identity of an individual and a link between the crime scene and origin of reference. Element traces like fingerprint contribute to a criminal investigation in the form of methodological or scientific indication through different procedures. The first step is called identification that determines what is at the crime scene, bullet deposit, blood and/or hair. After that is found, classification would try to link the traces to something that could have been used in the making of the crime scene. When the object or specific collection is found, the physical evidence is linked to the person who participated in the crime scene. The last process if to find out why the crime happened in the first place. These all play into the process of creating the crime scene and solving the case to catch the perpetrator

A fingerprint mark or handwriting are so vast that it is unlikely to find the exact match to one individual. It can be inferred that the print or of written text would be similar among multiple people that would be extremely hard to pin point it to one person. From this likelihood and the fact that society in general cannot be excluded this would complicate the third process of individualism which would lead to one of the theories from Karl Popper of white swans: We can’t conclude that all swans are white unless we have been able to examine all swans (Popper 1959). This can determine that the finger print or handwriting is shared among numerous people. Popper’s theories search for the truth in science, the answer cannot conclusively be found within inductive reasoning. “What we are trying to do in science is to describe and (as much as possible) to explain the reality. We do it using conjectural theories, i.e. theories that we hope are true (or close to the truth), but it is not possible for us to establish that they are certain, or even probable” (Popper, 1991, p. 94).

Induction is the process of being constructed from a narrow or broad interpretation based from a limited source of information. A person uses an assortment of evidence expanded through time and knowledge and uses it to form a conclusion from the given facts. This basically means the interpretations might turn out to be true but since the information provided is limited, the conclusion could be false. In an attempt to overcome the induction problem in traditional forensic classification, it is trusted on the differences between numerous characteristics. For example, firearms of a cert Deductive reasoning skills are useful in scientific investigations. Deductive reasoning applies broad principles to predict specific answers. For example, the broad principles of human genetics can be applied to DNA analysis, usually yielding very reliable results. In make will leave the same markers on a bullet. The type of weapon could then be identified.

Traditional forensic sciences need to change the current paradigm. The theory of visible individuality that is the central staple of these fields is deteriorated by evidence of errors in proficiency testing and in authentic cases. Changes in the law pertaining to the admissibility of expert evidence, together with the emergence of DNA typing as a model for a scientifically strong approach to questions of shared identity, are driving the older forensic sciences toward a new scientific paradigm.

Forensic sciences are integrating to move an up and coming doubt about the claims of the traditional forensic individualization sciences. As a result, these sciences are moving toward a new scientific paradigm. From Thomas Kuhn’s concept the five characterizes to prove a theory is valid. They are accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity and fruitfulness (95). Forensic science can fit within accuracy because at the time of court cases and evidence built up against the perp, it is through the current scientific experiments and observations that come to the conclusion. The accuracy of forensics science paradigm is always being shifted to something new when new equipment come out and new research is found. It can also fit within consistency in that it fits with Karl popper’s theory of white swans and how a fingerprint cannot be reduced to one individual. Forensic science can as well be fruitful, the parameters are constantly changing to advance with technology and use everything at hand to merge what they already know to the new theories being added within the science. Forensic science is transforming itself to be a more grounded science to improve with technology. In the past from new articles people who were convicted of grave crimes have been exonerated by DNA analyses of crime scene evidence that had not been tested at the time of their trials. Flawed convictions sometimes occur, that new science and technology can help distinguish and correct future mistakes.

Sometimes errors occur, if the people doing crime scene work are trained to believe evidence has a limited role and value, more errors will occur. There needs to be a real focus on training to ensure that trace is recognized, recorded and recovered and its assessment documented in the triage or case management phase. There is also a need to better express the different reasons applied to intelligence and investigation or assess results considering hypotheses proposed by others through internationally deductive method. A distinctive, vigorous and more reliable science may emerge through rethinking the forensics paradigm, learning from past errors, revisiting fundamental forensic science philosophies and adapting them to the twenty-first century.

References

1. https://www.academia.edu/216906/The_Philosophy_of_Forensic_Scientific_Identification
2. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_164
3. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/daed_a_00523

The criminal justice system often trusts on forensic evidence to convict or exonerate the suspect but some legal professionals say many forensic practices including bite mark, DNA and hair examination lack integrity. When forensic methods such as DNA investigation are supposed to be systematically lawful, they have error rates higher than the public are led to believe (Jasanoff). Dr. Max M. Houck is an international forensic expert with over 25 years of experience. He has identified about 220 people have been exonerated from the previous conviction due to the misplaced evidence or misinterpreted information from the DA’s office. The mishandling of forensic science contributed to 45% of wrongful convictions in the United States proven through DNA evidence. False or misleading forensic evidence was a contributing factor in 24% of all wrongful convictions nationally, according to the National Registry of Exonerations, which tracks both DNA and non-DNA based exonerations (Houck).

A fingerprint mark or handwriting are so vast that it is unlikely to find the exact match to one individual. Even trusted lines of evidence, such as fingerprint analysis, are not water-tight. It can be inferred that the print or of written text would be similar among multiple people that would be extremely hard to pin point it to one person. From this likelihood and the fact that society in general cannot be excluded this would complicate the third process of individualism which would lead to one of the theories from Karl Popper of white swans: We can’t conclude that all swans are white unless we have been able to examine all swans (Popper). This can determine that the finger print or handwriting is shared among numerous people. Popper’s theories search for the truth in science, the answer cannot conclusively be found within inductive reasoning. “What we are trying to do in science is to describe and (as much as possible) to explain the reality. We do it using conjectural theories, i.e. theories that we hope are true (or close to the truth), but it is not possible for us to establish that they are certain, or even probable” (Popper).

From a subjective point of view, based on the experience of the detective they use their own personal opinions and previous crime scene to conclude who and what they may be searching for. A subjective decision is what leads to the problem with induction. Induction is the process of being constructed from a narrow or broad interpretation based from a limited source of information. A person uses an assortment of evidence expanded through time and knowledge and uses it to form a conclusion from the given facts. There are no objective standards to guide how examiners reach their conclusions. There is not set standard of how many characteristics must be shared before the expert can declare a finger print a match. It is completely up to the decision of the individual examiner based on their training and experience. Even if the print is wrong, the examiner can associate a few shared impressions to prove it is an exact match. This is almost entirely subjective that leads to a biased decision making result. (Mnookin).

In an attempt to overcome the induction problem in traditional forensic classification, it is trusted on the differences between numerous characteristics and an objective approach to let hard evidence do the heavy lifting. For example, firearms of a cert Deductive reasoning skills are useful in scientific investigations. Deductive reasoning applies broad principles to predict specific answers. For example, the broad principles of human genetics can be applied to DNA analysis, usually yielding very reliable results. In make will leave the same markers on a bullet. The type of weapon could then be identified (Mnookin).

Traditional forensic sciences need to change the current paradigm. The current central staple of these fields is deteriorated by evidence of errors in proficiency testing and in authentic cases. Changes in the law pertaining to the acceptability of expert evidence are driving the older forensic sciences toward a new scientific paradigm. Forensic sciences are integrating to move an up and coming doubt about the claims of the traditional forensic individualization sciences. Although forensic science is still flawed, these sciences are moving toward a new scientific paradigm (Jasanoff). From Thomas Kuhn’s concept the five characterizes to prove a theory is valid. They are accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity and fruitfulness (95). Forensic science can fit within accuracy because at the time of court cases and evidence built up against the perp, it is through the current scientific experiments and observations that come to the conclusion. The accuracy of forensics science paradigm is always being shifted to something different when new equipment comes out and new research is found. It can also fit within consistency in that it fits with Karl popper’s theory of white swans and how a fingerprint cannot be reduced to one individual. Forensic science can as well be fruitful, the parameters are constantly changing to advance with technology and use everything at hand to merge what they already know to the new theories being added within the science. Forensic science is transforming itself to be a more grounded science to improve with technology. In the past from new articles people who were convicted of grave crimes have been exonerated by DNA analyses of crime scene evidence that had not been tested at the time of their trials.

What’s needed are additional safeguards to shield forensic examiners against irrelevant information that might skew their judgement. There needs to be a reform within the justice system to rethink its inclination to disclose pattern-matching evidence. Improving laws to ensure proper access to release based on changes in science for people who have been convicted based off of biased or mishandled evidence. Some state has already taken measure to help improve the justice system. California enacted a law that allows convicted people to seek relief based on flawed forensic evidence used in their convictions (Mnookin). Flawed convictions sometimes occur, new science and technology can help distinguish and correct future mistakes. If the people doing crime scene work are trained to believe evidence has a limited role and value, more errors will occur. There needs to be a real focus on training to ensure that trace is recognized, recorded and recovered and its assessment documented in the triage or case management phase. There is also a need for a judge to be versed in forensic science, a judge decides what evidence can be presented in court. Most of them do not have training within forensics or the skill to evaluate the systematic validity of a forensic practice, this should have precedent over the current precedent (Jasanoff).

References

1. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/daed_a_00523 (Mnookin, 2018)
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXAk_frXOxI (Houck).
3. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/daed_a_00517 (Jasanoff, 2018)

Forensic science is any sort of science utilized in the legitimate or equity framework to help and maintain the law. Forensic science is acquired from the Latin term forensis which means public discussion or debate. Forensic science is the implication of science, and the scientific method to the judicial system. At the point when wrongdoing has been submitted and proof is gathered at the scene, researchers break it down, show up at logical outcomes and give master court declarations about their discoveries. Forensic science focuses on realities that demonstrate something did or didn’t occur in a lawbreaker or common case.

Benefits

The dismissal of the innocent, around 80 cases have been overturned because of the DNA evidence. Forensics has been expenitionly developing and becoming better. The use of forensics has helped a lot of people that were wrongfully accused of a crime, giving the people their freedom back. Forensics can also be used to help identify the victim that has been in a crime or a disaster. Using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to swiftly make millions to billions of copies of the sample DNA, that is large enough to study in detail. So either the criminal can be convicted of the crime or the victim can be identified. The DNA can also be used in natural disasters as a means to determine the victims if they can not be identified. In one case, Ted Bundy was convicted of murder, of 12 year old Kimberly Leach. Fibres of the girl’s clothing was found in the back of his van. I believe that forensic science is beneficial because it has helped innocent people that were convicted to be set free. It has also helped the police force with finding and arresting criminals.

Science involved in forensic technology

Due to the rapid enhancements in technology, solving crimes has become a lot simpler. During the forensic science process , scientific gear is utilized to process samples and evidence to solve crimes. Measurements include fingerprinting or DNA identification, analysing chemicals or drugs, analysing evidence and dealing with bodily fluids. There are many methods in forensics, these include: Phenom desktop SEM which is a rapid and high quality imaging tool that is reliable. This allows crime labs to examine for gunshot residue fragments. Facial reconstruction is an approach used in the forensic field when a body is unable to be analyzed. Artistry, anthropology, osteology and anatomy are all used to recreate the face of the individual from the skeletal remains. DNA sequencing helps identify both criminals and victims, by using skin or hair. Admittedly DNA evidence alone can’t get you convicted but it plays a crucial part. DNA sequencing also allows forensic scientists to arrange short tandem repeat markers (STR), likely resulting in an increased capability to differentiate individuals.

Issues relating to forensic science

Ethical

Firstly before you can say what is ethical and what is not, you have to first have a universal definition. The reason is because one person’s beliefs, morals, ethics and culture can be different meaning that they might see something as acceptable and another person might not. Issues such as juvenile incarcerations, mental capability of the accused to stand trial, discrimination and confidentiality. To ensure that you comply to the highest standards of ethical practice the following steps have to be made, identify the problem; consider the significance of the context and setting; identify and use ethics and legal resources; consider personal beliefs and values; develop possible solutions to the problem; consider the potential consequences of various solutions; choose and implement a course of action; and assess the outcome and implement changes as needed.

Social

Forensic science has been intensely affected socially, this has appeared through the incalculable time’s convictions have been founded on forensic evidence, more appointed authorities, juries and legal counselors put confidence into criminological science. This has influenced web based life by placing a great deal of trust in scientists.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, forensic science like all things has its pros and cons. In some cases it is crucial and helpful in identifying people that could solve the case but it could also go against someone’s beliefs, ethics, morals and values but I believe that can really help solve a crime.

It is recorded in history that the first police laboratory to open in the United Kingdom was the Metropolitan Police Laboratory that opened in 1935 at Hendon, Barnet. This laboratory only had a small number of personnel working there at six, a possible reasoning for this would be that Forensic Science was a new area of advanced science which had not been discovered back in that time era. The Home Office opened several laboratories across England and Wales under the name of the Home Office Forensic Science Service after the success of the first laboratory and increasing demand not only England and Wales but in addition a very few European countries. ([1] Walls HJ 1976) This is mainly because the first official forensic science laboratory was formed by the French police department and opened in 1910 at Lyon, France.

[3] The Government of the United Kingdom announced the closure of the service in December 2010, claiming that the service was stacking up monthly losses of up to £2 million. It closed on the 31st March 2012. Collections of case files and casework samples such as microscope slides, fibre samples and DNA samples from older cases were kept for future investigation and analysis if needed. The service’s reputation was heavily questioned following its failure to recover blood stains from a shoe in the murder of Damilola Taylor. It became exposed to further scrutiny when the service failed to use highly advanced and more modern techniques for extracting DNA samples in cases between 2000 and 2005. This led the Association of Chief Police Officers to advise and instruct all police forces in England and Wales to review cases where samples had failed to give a DNA profile, and this resulted in uncertainty and doubt in the Forensic Science Service. ([3] Forensic Science Labs. 2016)

According to the [4] Law Gazette blog article by Alistair Logan, He states ‘A survey of forensic scientists carried out by the New Scientist found that 78% of them thought that miscarriages of justice will increase. 70% felt that there will be a reduction in the reliability of the interpretation of evidence; 65% of them felt that it would make it harder for defence teams to challenge the interpretation of evidence and a similar number felt that there will be a decrease of straightforwardness by Forensic Scientists employed by private Forensic Science providers’. I believe that the quote and statistics suggest that before the closure of the Forensic Science service, most Forensic Scientists believed that the closure of the service would negatively impact the process of criminal investigations. The report also states that due to the closure of the service in, the organisation of evidence in cases from 2010 would have been extremely messy and it would have caused a lot of complications which resulted in serial offenders escaping detection. This suggests that Forensic Scientists believed that there would be an increase of crime after the closure of the service because of this issue. I believe that this would have had a negative effect on society because it would lead to more reoffences and in result, criminal investigations. ([4] Logan. A 22nd August 2012)

Total Forensic provision was estimating to cost police services in England and Wales before the closure around £400 million every year. Spending on Forensic Science was estimated to around 20% of each Force’s scientific and technological spend for each police force. 52% of police force’s Forensic spend was on services provided in house by police forces which consisted of fingerprinting and Scenes of Crime Officers. ([5] Forensic Science on Trial 2004-05)

There were several smaller companies engaged in analytical and testing work, looking at the graph only a small percentage of services was provided by individual Forensic practitioners before the closure. The Forensic Science Service accounted for around 85% of the external Forensic services market, but the market share had been declining before the closure of the service in 2012. I believe that due to the impact of the police reducing the cost of Forensic Science services to their forces, this led to a strong likelihood that the costs ended up rising for less able consumers. This would also have led to the fact that in house police laboratories would not have been available to the defence due to the closure of the service in 2012. This source from the House of Commons suggests that the reduction of Forensic Science market providers led to the eventual closure of the service and police forces have not had the same services ever since due to them wanting to reduce costing from services back in 2004.

A news article from the Independent written by Paul Peachey in 2015 explains the risk of privatisation in Forensic services. This article talks about the impact from the Forensic Science Service closure and contains expert opinion. It states ‘While the size of the private sector Forensics market has declined, the police’s own in house laboratory work has increased from 113 million pounds in 2012-13 to 122 million pounds. Only one force has entirely obtained its Forensic Science work, the report found. In the face of budget cuts, the NAO discovered that police were designing their requests for Forensic work rather than ordering a range of tests. Professor Peter Gill, the pioneer of mass genetic profiling, said that the shift to in house DNA testing would be disastrous with Forensic Scientists under pressure to come up with results to secure convictions. Forensic Science is now becoming police controlled, Professor Gill told The Independent. It’s difficult enough when you’re not working for the police; you’re put under a lot of pressure to report what the police want you to report’ ([6] Peachey. P 2015). This suggests to us that Forensic Scientists in England and Wales believed putting Forensic Science in the hands of police forces was a negative consequence because of the closure of the service because they did not have the advanced knowledge than the Forensic Scientists who worked in the service before its closure.

It Is recorded that over 1600 people were made redundant because of the closure with many having to walk away from their expertise in Forensic Science. While it is an impact from the closure of the service, it affected many lives with some leaving the service with very healthy redundancy packages. However, to other sectors I believe it really did not matter. The people made redundant not working would not have been paying taxes as they come out automatically out of their wage slip so the taxpayer will be making less money. 1600 people is a small amount compared to the whole population so I believe it would not of had a big impact on the taxpayer. To the criminal justice system, it does not really matter because Law personnel would not be involved with the service and the analytical side of an investigation. Victims of crime will still be able to report a crime and get justice because evidence will always exist, and the closure of the service did not affect victims’ rights or chain of custody of evidence. This means that the closure of the service did not impact some sectors of criminal investigation.

Another impact since the closure of the service is that more fresh University graduates in England and Wales had started to get employed more in the Forensic Science Sector. I believe that this is both a positive and negative effect of the closure of the service. While it did create more job vacancies to provide experience and opportunity for fresh graduates, this meant that young, naïve and unexperienced individuals were walking into advanced and important roles in Forensic Science which they would have had to acquire more training from the employer. This also links with the effect of older and experienced Forensic Scientists walking away from the service after its closure whose expertise would not be yet present in newly fresh University graduates. Overall, I believe that this is a negative effect of the closure of the Forensic Science Service.

In the [7] Forensic Science Strategy report, it talks about how the Government wanted a long term strategy after the closure for research in Forensic Science. In this case for biometrics as the Government believes it is ‘fast changing’ and ‘provides opportunities for better secure identity verification, better public services, improved public protection and the ability to identify and stop criminals’. This suggests that even after the closure of the service, research around Forensic Science carried on as technology is constantly getting developed. However, without the service and the closure of many Forensic laboratories I believe research was impacted by restrictions to lack of available Forensic Scientists and laboratories. It goes on to state ‘. The Government is developing two separate Forensic and Biometric strategies and remains determined to publish both strategies by the end of 2015’. This is also evidence that the Government was continuing to invest in Forensic Science research despite the closure of the service. Overall, I believe research was impacted negatively by the closure because of the many Forensic Scientists becoming redundant and walking away with their expertness. ([7] Forensic Science Strategy 2016-17)

References Used

1. Walls HJ: The Forensic Science Service in Great Britain: A short history; J Forensic Sci Soc 16:273; 1976.
2. Authority of the House of Commons (2011) The Forensic Science Service, London: The Stationary Office Limited.
3. Forensic Science Labs. Derelict Places documenting decay. 25th September (2016). Accessed: 12 March 2020. Available at: https://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/misc-sites/33787-forensic-science-labs.html#.XmqbpKj7TIU
4. Logan, A. 22nd August 2012. Law. . The Destruction of the Forensic Science Service. [Online]. Accessed: 6th April 2020. Available at: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the-destruction-of-the-forensic-science-service/67018.article
5. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: Forensic Science on Trial (seventh report of session 2004-05 HC 96-1); [Online] Accessed: 8th April 2020. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/96/96i.pdf
6. Peachey, P., 2015. Privatisation of forensic services ‘threat to justice’ and putting the work in police hands would be ‘disastrous,’ warn experts. The Independent, [online] p.A single page. Accessed 9th April 2020. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/privatisation-of-forensic-services-a-threat-to-justice-and-putting-the-work-in-police-hands-would-be-9991356.html
7. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: Forensic Science Strategy (Fourth report of session 2016-17); [Online] Accessed: 10th April 2020. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/501/501.pdf
8. The Government Response to the Second Report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Session 2013-14 HC 610: Forensic Science; November 2013; [Online] Accessed 10th April 2020. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/goverment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264054/8750.pdf
9. BBC News: New Forensic Science Service Planned; [Online] Accessed 10th April 2020. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35793073
10. The Department of Justice: About Forensic Science Northern Ireland; [Online] Accessed 11th April 2020. Available at: https://www.justice-ni.gov.uk/articles/about-forensic-science-northern-ireland

The subject of criminology is often seen as more of a scientific field and the popular media that engages with crime sources their material from crimes that had occurred or theories that engage with deviance and criminology. However, the emergence of forensic semiotics have placed a new emphasis on the study of the relationship between criminology, forensic sciences, and the portrayal of crime in popular media. The study of forensic semiotics can contribute significantly to the study of crime detection and understanding the meaning of crime (Danesi 26). Through using Catch Me If You Can’s (2002) engagement with the signs of deception, detection processes and psychoanalytics, I argue that the value of forensic semiotics is demonstrated through exploring the difficulty of catching crime and understanding the relational aspects behind the meaning of crime as it achieves the perfect balance between first and second order forensic semiotics.

The theoretical background of understanding the forensic semiotics is based on its first and second order. According to Danesi, first order forensic semiotics refers to how insights from evidence that are collected by forensic scientists can aid crime detection such as through helping “interrogators and investigators understand how facial expressions, gesture, language, and so on can be used to recognize deception and identify perpetrators” (27). Meanwhile, second order forensic semiotics refers to the synergy formed between gauging “the connection among crime, fictional depictions of it, and cultural definitions and perceptions of crime” (Danesi 27). In a way, there is a sense of partnership that has been established between the police and media as they investigate crime in tandem through both the reality and fictional dimensions of crime (Danesi 27). The argument to be made here is that Catch Me If You Can (2002) creates an excellent balance in demonstrating both first and second order forensic semiotics as the first order reveals the difficulty in catching criminals, while the second order seeks to understand the meaning of crime through exploring its relational aspects as it highlights the social formation of deviance and the relationship between the investigator and the criminal.

For context, Catch Me If You Can (2002) is a film based on the true story of Frank Abagnale Jr., starring Leonardo Dicaprio as Frank, Tom Hanks as Carl Hanratty (fictional FBI character but based on real characters that led to his arrest), and directed by Steven Spielberg. The film traces the development of Frank who began to con and use confidence tricks as early as sixteen years old following the divorce of his parents. He would first begin with writing his own personal cheques, then impersonating airline pilots and forging Pan Am payroll cheques. As his crimes catch the attention of the FBI, Frank begins to impersonate a doctor, and then a lawyer, falling in love with hospital worker, Brenda. However, Carl closes in on Frank and forces Frank to flee to Europe. Frank continues to forge checks in Europe but is eventually caught by Carl in France. Frank is eventually escorted back to the United States but after finding out that his father had died, Frank escapes the airplane through the toilet. He runs to his mother’s house and sees his half-sister through the window before surrendering to the police that had arrived. Frank is sentenced to twelve years but Carl worked to have him serve the remainder of his sentence through working for the FBI. While their working relationship continues, Frank becomes increasingly bored of his position and wishes to break free again. Carl intercepts Frank attempting to fly as an airline pilot and becomes worried at first when Frank doesn’t return to work. However, Frank eventually appears and the movie concludes with a short description of the Frank in real life working as a security consultant.

First, the film engages with a reflection on the processes in which first order forensic semiotics are being developed while highlighting the difficulties of crime detection in real life. There are two main forms of deception that the film engages with: lying as a con man, and forgery. Unbeknownst to the common observer, there is purpose behind the acting of Dicaprio as Frank when he engages in lying such that he overcomes the semiotics of deception in order to deceive Carl. Danesi engages in a wide range of verbal and non-verbal semiotics relating the process of lying and lie detection. These include the physiological changes as mediated by the Autonomous Nervous System (ANS) as it becomes the source of L-signs such as “sweating, pupil dilation, goose bumps, among others” (32). Furthermore, it can also be combined with the use of facial expressions, eye contact, and head movement to help with detecting deception because to only interpret one out of context would be virtually useless (Danesi 42). Where these semiotics are being used to identify if an individual was lying, someone could also steer clear of revealing these signs or creating the impression of truthfulness in taking advantage of it.

In each of these categories for the semiotics of deception, Frank had been extremely effective in avoiding them to convey the semiotics of truthfulness. The most ridiculous but also humorous sign of deception is when Frank is caught by Carl at the hotel but Frank pretends to be a secret-service agent and is able to escape capture. From the audience’s perspective and even Carl, there is almost great certainty in Frank’s capture because he is being caught red-handed. However, he successfully deceived Carl because rather than instigating the fight or flight response that is most common with the ANS when being confronted by the police, Frank chooses somewhat of a third option. Frank’s decision to pretend to be a secret service agent highlights how the most ridiculous approach was effective in his instance because it was something that was entirely unexpected. Not only did the audience not expect this, but Carl did not as well. The process of lying also steered clear of the semiotics of deception as Frank engaged in eye-contact, maintained a posture of confidence, and spoke with the same air that one would expect from another law enforcement official. In this sense, it highlights one of the difficulties in the forensic science and first order forensic semiotics where the interpretation of signs is based on existing data that had been gathered. When observations are made from data and instances that are entirely foreign, then the investigator is fallible to deception. Carl, who did not have any idea of what Frank looked like, was unable to realize that he was being lied to. There were also no signs for him to detect that would suggest deception, as all observations had pointed to truthfulness. Such techniques were replicated throughout the movie when Frank engaged in cons and confidence tricks as he avoided the semiotics of deception but the instance of lying to Carl as a secret service agent is the most impressive and humorous of them all.

While there is indubitably an element of luck in Frank deceiving Carl and the exaggeration that may need to be acknowledged from the film’s purpose and role as mass media, it ultimately highlights the difficulty of capture criminals. This is one of the more effective features of the film in relation to forensic semiotics as it provides a window as to the difficult reality of detecting lies and thus catching criminals. As Danesi writes, “to the semiotician, only by matching them to the situation, the context, and other variables that characterize human interaction can they be construed as constituting signs of deception…[and] making an accurate conclusion about the truth or falsity of some statement achievable” (32). While it is easy for one to list out the semiotics of deception, the truth is that they need to be taken in conjunction with the context and a multitude of different variables which makes the process of detecting deception and crime itself tremendously difficult. In fact, Vrij highlights how one of the biggest problems with training for lie detection is that there is difficulty in teaching the trainee as to which specific cues that they should be looking out for that are diagnostic as opposed to non-diagnostic (171). This posits one of the challenges with semiotic forensics and highlights an important future direction—the interpretation of signs and semiotics.

The relationship between the signifier and the signified requires such a multidisciplinary approach because not every cue in lie detection is diagnostic and focusing on the non-diagnostic ones may lead the investigator astray. This is further challenged and mediated by the combination of different cues based on different contexts that the investigator needs to address at the same time. Within an interview setting, Carl may have been more effective to catch and detect the lies of Frank because interview settings can introduce different interview styles that elicit different responses from the alleged criminal (Vrij 174). However, this again demonstrates the difficulty for the investigator who is encountering a criminal or interviewing potential witnesses because they are not conducted in such a close environment. The study of forensic semiotics in the second order allows the audience to gain an understanding of such difficulties and perhaps providing motivation in future as to how law enforcement officers could respond more effectively to deception.

The second difficulty of crime detection as highlighted by the film is addressing the social aspects of criminology or the criminal justice system as a whole. The depiction of crime on popular media is one of the main ways of engagement from second order forensic semiotics where it extends beyond just the ontological processes of the detective as had been highlighted by Danesi but also a commentary on the social aspects of the criminal justice system as an important mediator of how criminals are caught (143). This is an extension of how the detective is often seen to be not playing by the rules as they use unorthodox methods to investigate the crime or potentially being in conflict with their superiors (Danesi 143). The conflicts that could be seen in the movie are the loss of confidence from Carl’s superiors as Frank was able to evade capture multiple times over the past few years. While Carl does not entirely use unorthodox methods to try to capture Frank, but he is determined to fly to Europe as well as being portrayed as one of the lead detectives to have caught onto Frank or is more educated than his colleagues in aspects relating to forgery and financial crimes.

However, the more important commentary that is being made by the movie is how there are inherent flaws within the criminal justice system due to the mediation by social and bureaucratic processes. Frank is often portrayed as the outsider compared to his colleagues because his knowledge of financial crimes is more advanced, especially as when his colleague mocks him for spending so much time studying cheques and forgeries. This can be seen when the colleague said “Carl, for those of us who are unfamiliar with bank fraud…You know, you want to talk to my wife, she’s the one balances the checkbooks at our house” (Spielberg 44:30).

References

1. Danesi, Marcel. Signs of Crime: Introducing Forensic Semiotics. De Gruyter Mouton, 2014.
2. Vrij, Aldert. “Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve.” Legal and Criminal Psychology, vol. 9, 2004, pp. 159-181.
3. Tzanelli, Rodanthi, et al. “’Con Me If You Can’: Exploring Crime in the American Cinematic Imagination.” Theoretical Criminology, vol. 9, no. 1, Feb. 2005, pp. 97–117, doi:10.1177/1362480605048945.
4. Presser, Lois. “Criminology and the Narrative Turn.” Crime, Media, Culture, vol. 12, no. 2, Aug. 2016, pp. 137–151, doi:10.1177/1741659015626203.
5. Spielberg, Steven, director. Dicaprio, Leonardo and Tom Hanks, Performer. Catch Me If You Can. DreamWorks Pictures, 2002.
6. Dooely, Brendan. “The Emergence of Contemporary Criminology: An Oral History of Its Development as an Independent Profession.” Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 66, no. 4, 2016, 339-357.

The term criminology was formulated in (1885 by Raffaele Garofalo) who was an Italian professor. According to Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey, criminology is a body of knowledge regarding crime as a social event also its an action, toward the breaking of laws. Moreover, there is also argument whether criminology is a science or not( between Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald Cressy). Criminology relates to science because criminals commit crime due to the environment or because of their genetics.

Criminology has wide implications for society, and affects many aspects of our lives and therefore wider knowledge on causes and prevention of criminal behaviour can positively contribute to individual lives and to society more holistically. Albert Bandura’s social learning theory clearly demonstrates the role of imitation and role models in influencing our behaviour (1). This can then be linked to Sutherland’s differential association theory, to explain offending behaviour as a product of our environment and exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and how our interactions and associations with others play a significant role in the type of behaviour we chose to display (2). Additionally, exploring Skinner’s operant Conditioning theory highlighted the role of consequences of behaviour and how this can either weaken or strengthen actions (3).

Such theories emphasise the role of the environment in shaping our behaviour however, it is important to take an electric approach to gain a better understanding of causes of specific actions be it prosocial behaviour or criminal behaviour therefore, criminology is science and has an affect on individuals and this has a negative or positive impact on the society. Additionally, researching Raine’s ( Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by positron emission tomography 1997) work, on neural explanations of criminal behaviour opened a new way of thinking to why people become criminals. His work focuses on neural abnormalities where he found an 11% reduction the volume of grey matter in the prefrontal cortex of criminals compared to a control group.

One way that, criminology is a science because the biological theories of crime emphasises a general way to evaluate a problem rather than examining a problem by guessing or paranormal way. Ibn al-Haytham (965-1039), developed a biological way that explains crime and criminal behaviour of an individual also, the scientist Iraqi-born wrote a book about explanation of how and why the problem is a issue and the affect on the individuals behaviour. (4). The scientific method in the hard or natural sciences has been used to analyse and solve issues to explain how social problems develop and has an affect on an individuals such as crime and criminality and to understand difference between criminal and non-criminal individuals.

The biological approach also emphasises that criminology is a science. Hans Eysenck believed that the biological theory explains the difference between criminal and non criminal behaviour of an individual, he argues that criminal behaviour happens because of their choices and biological genetics. Hans Eysenck (5) found three dimensions which were called personality traits. These personality traits helps someone understand if an individual is likely to commit crime. The first personality trait was called extroversion-introversion, this dimension is found in everyone it explains how social and shy or quiet an individuals is. Extroversion is also stability of inhibition and excitation which demonstrates how someones brain work and how it starts taking action and stopping it from doing something therefore if an individual wanted to commit crime their brain first get in to alert and want to do it however there’s also other side of the brain, which is inhibition which helps the idea settle down and delay the action happening which will make an individual have second thoughts of doing the crime. However, the choice is always up to the individual, they will make a choice of that two balanced thoughts whether its right or wrong. The second personality trait is neurotics helps an individual to express their feelings and emotions. The research that H. Eysenck made demonstrates that people with neuroticism is more like to be relaxed or nervous therefore a lot of people are more likely to agonise from the nervous disorder. People that fells in to neurotic category is more likely to use their thoughts and emotions to control their actions therefore sympathy nervous system has big impact on their behaviour. If an individual is nervous and fearful they will be more less likely to commit crime because, their emotions will take over their brain and not make to action happen. Additionally the last one is psychoticism ( Hans Eysenck 1966). H. Eysenck added the third trait later, depending on he’s research there was also people that didn’t fall in to other traits such as, aggressive or lonely people. They are more likely to commit crime because they will have problems with controlling their anger and lack of communications with other people therefore they will have nothing to lose. They will risk everything and do an inappropriate behaviour.

In conclusion, Hans Eysenck’s ( 1966) trait approach theory emphasise that criminology is a science, which is scientifically proofed. If an individual has a criminal act, this will happen because of their genetics and personality. As H. Eysenck explained that personality traits has important part of an individual’s actions. Also, a criminal behaviour can be encouraged by psychoanalytically this demonstrates the experiences from the individual’s past which will affect on their behaviour in a positive or negative way.

We are familiar with what is called the Scientific Method; it has been in existent for some years. It is factual that during the course of human history scientists and mathematicians because of the rudimentary basics they were able to follow the method, even though they were rarely acknowledged and hardly tracked the Method precisely. Scientific Method was initially invented by an Italian doctor know as Francesco Redi in the late 17th centuries, it was the experiments he did that refuted the impulsive generation of maggots on rotting garbage. It was through his experiments of those maggots that appeared to mysteriously form on rotting meat, but it would be through hypothesizing that this was proven not to be true. The Scientific Method is the standard process that scientists are expected to follow when conducting experiments, in order to try to construct a dependable, reliable, and non-arbitrary picture of our surroundings.

In order to follow the Scientific Method, one would need to be strict and stick very closely to a order of conducting tests. The one thing that the scientist need to do first, would be that the scientist has to detect the phenomenon of importance. What happens after that is the scientist has to offer a premise, or thought in which the experimentations would be founded around. With that there must be a repeat of the experimentation, because the hypothesis could prove to be incorrect or are it could actually turn out to be a theory. If the hypothesis is confirmed to be incorrect, the scientist would have to reformulate his or her thoughts and come up with another hypothesis, and the experiment would have to commence over. This process will have to be repeated till a theory is produce. It would then be called a theory in the making which is called a conclusion.

What will be brought out in this paper and it will be shown just how observation and description of a phenomenon or a group of phenomena is done. Also Formulation of a hypothesis or hypotheses to explain the phenomena, why it’s important for the use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to quantitatively predict the results of new observations and the performance of testing of predictions by several independent experimenters. A famous scientist once said, clever people like smart attorneys can come up with a very good explanation for a incorrect point of view.

The scientific method which will be shown here will attempt to minimalize the effect of partiality or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory.

A primary stage involved in the scientific process is the observing and explanation of a phenomenon or a group of phenomena. The forensic examiner must notice an occurrence or situation. How this scientific process phase connects to forensic science would be, for instance, in a crime scene examination concerning ballistics. The observation would be of a specific bullet imprint in a surrounding. Maybe the defense in the situation would increase in their legal argument that the offender could not possibly have killed the victim given the point of entrance and point of exit wounds or the kind of bullet involved. The forensic examiner on the specific case may have the responsibility of arguing this claim. Young (2017)

Forensic ballistic investigation in criminal cases is not restricted exclusively to ballistics, rather includes blood-stained pattern examinations as well linking missile. Science should be, about the facts. Truth in its theoretical, divine or metaphysics forms is vital, but science deals only with experiential certainty. The scientific process has demonstrated itself over time to be a dependable way to reach an actual, quantifiable, apparent certainty. Past events, by their nature of being in the past, have passed from actual to abstract. All that is in the past is now in the form of retention or record, if it is in any form at all. To reach the certainty of past events, mainly truth that is actual, calculated, or experiential, the anamnestic information must not be disregarded or diminished. It must be joined with the explanations made at the crime sight, in the crime test center or in the post-mortem suite. Young (2017)

The scientific technique without change to allow for past events will only cause inaccuracies. Inaccuracies of this nature lead to prejudice. Those of us in the legal and forensic science communities should never allow this kind of prejudice or permit it to happen. The Shaken Baby Syndrome is one instance of how a incorrect use of the scientific technique from past events can lead to years upon years of errors and prejudices. There are many other instances that could be mentioned, but this paper is limited to a certain amount of words. With all the time that has lapsed there is no divinity way of determining just how to estimate the prejudices brought about by perplexed science. Some prejudices in time may be resolved, but regrettably most will not. It is my hope that forensic scientists, police officers, the legal community, and others who systematically investigate events from the past will uniformly embrace the change of the scientific process for past events: the forensic scientific method. Young (2017)

A hypothesis is used to explain a phenomenon or predict a relationship in communication research. There are four evaluation criteria that a hypothesis must meet. First, it must state an expected relationship between variables. Second, it must be testable and falsifiable; researchers must be able to test whether a hypothesis is truth or false. Third, it should be consistent with the existing body of knowledge. Finally, it should be stated as simply and concisely as possible. Allen (2017)

Formulating a hypothesis requires a specific, testable, and predictable statement driven by theoretical guidance and/or prior evidence. A hypothesis can be formulated in various research designs. In experimental settings, researchers compare two or more groups of research participants to investigate the differences of the research outcomes. These participants are randomly. Allen (2017)

An example of this would be: if I eat more vegetables, I would lose more weight faster. The result would be this. Direct effects of the intervention would be found for the change in the body weight (b=-3.84, R2=0.074), fruit/vegetable intake (b=2.00, R2=0.083), and (EBI) eating behaviors mediated scores (b=7.15, R2=0.229) (ps < 0.05). The treatment group to weight change path was not statistically significant (b=-0.673, R2=0.208) when fruit/vegetable intake change and EBI score change were specified as intervention mediators in the model. The total indirect effect was 3.17 lbs. indicating that the indirect paths explained 82.6% of the total effect on weight change.

Previously it was mention that the scientific method tries to minimalize the effect of the scientist’s prejudice on the outcome of an experiment. When testing a hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a partiality for one result or another, and it is significant that this first choice not bias the outcome or their clarification. The greatest fundamental error would be to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, short of carrying out experimental testing or rule out information which does not back up the hypothesis. ‘The Scientific Method “Hypotheses, Models, Theories, (2019)

Preferably, the person that is doing the experiment will be open to possibility that the hypothesis is right or wrong. From time to time, a scientist may have a strong conviction that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect, or feels internal or external weight to get a precise outcome. In that case, there may be a mental propensity to discover something incorrect, such as methodical effects, with information which do not back up the scientist’s anticipation, while information which does agree with the anticipation might be checked more carefully. The object lesson here would be that all information has to be handled in the same way. ‘The Scientific Method “Hypotheses, Models, Theories (2019)

Another common error could arise from the failure to calculate quantitatively methodical mistakes and all mistakes. There are countless instances of detections which were misused by experimenters whose information contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a methodical background. On the other hand, there are numerous instances of so-called new detections which later shown to be due to methodical mistakes not accountable for by the discoverers. In an arena where there is vigorous testing and open interaction amongst associates of the scientific community, the prejudices of people or groupings might stop, as experimental tests are reiterated by other scientists that may have other prejudices. There are other kinds of experimental formats that have other bases of methodical mistakes. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests typically at least numerous years, a consensus grows in the public as to which experimental outcomes have stood the test of time. ‘The Scientific Method “Hypotheses, Models, Theories“(2019)

The final step in this entire process of scientific method of course is the performing of the experiments. There are many testers and as such they are all trying to predict by doing their own independent experiments, therefore trying to come up with their own predictions. What this means is whether or not their hypothesis will be reinforced by the results they come up with, because once the testing has been conducted and predicted and results attained, the hypothesis is now considered to be believable. The test must be a control testing implemented by more than a few self-governing alchemists/ scientist. It is the job of the examiner or the scientists to contrast and or control because the repetition aspects of these testing are critical. Within these final stages of testing there should be an attempt of numerous testing times on numerous subjects. It is imperative in doing so in the last stages so that it may be determine that the outcome is not merely coincidental, but rather intentional and undeniable. Schafersman (1997)

Forensics science is crucial in the request to law and permitted questions as fairness is hinging on unwavering and precise outcomes. Luckily, science and technology have greatly enhanced in recent years to decrease the number of flawed accusations and judgments for the not guilty. But on the other hand this same control is for more stretching in that a criminal or perpetrator is just about certain to be arrested given the probability that minuscule strands of traced evidence is practically always located at the scene of a crime. Schafersman (1997)

Striving for brilliance is oftentimes convoyed by misfortune, because one cannot rely on one thing more than it does the other, like the research within itself are testing that will be the determining factor in reality. This was a known fact when G.A. Magnini, openly declared that Galileo’s observations showed that Jupiter had satellites, therefore he proved this was incorrect. Schafersman (1997) Although the scientific revolution emerged gradually, Galileo’s ideas were able to be traced to the thirteenth century. Galileo’s (2009)

Forensic science is at a crossroads. There is an ongoing recognition that the law do require for forensic feature-comparison method to be done, in order for it to be consider as scientifically valid and dependable before it might be used in the court of law, this certainly can only be carried out by being satisfied by an actual empirical testing. There are several forensic regulations, like latent-print examination, clearly establish that a genuine empirical testing has been done and that it is possible and can help drive change for the better. There must be a generation of forensic scientists prepared and enthusiastic to embrace a fresh, empirical method including black-box studies, white-box studies, and technology expansion efforts to transform subjective approaches into unbiased approaches.

Reference

1. Allen, M. (2017) Hypothesis Formulation – SAGE Research Methods Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com reference the-sage-encyclopedia-of-community
2. Galileo Galilei: Biography, Inventions & Other Facts | Space (2009) Retrieved from https://www.space.com 15589-galileo-galilei
3. Schafersman, S. D. (1997). An Introduction to Science Retrieved from
4. https://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu esp files scientific-method
5. The Scientific Method “Hypotheses, Models, Theories, and (2019) Retrieved from http:// https://bscdesigner.com Executive’s Toolkit
6. Young, Dr. T. (2017) Forensic Science and the Scientific Method – Heartland Retrieved from http://www.heartlandforensic.com writing forensic-science-and-the-scientific