week 5 discussion for CMRJ101
rtf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
American Military University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
rtf
Pages
2
Uploaded by BarristerEchidnaMaster996
1. Discuss at least one forensic technique or evidence examination that is considered unreliable or "junk science". It is important to also explain why this type of analysis has been proven invalid and should not be used in criminal investigations.
Junk science is best defined as the collection of scientific data and research that can play a critical role within creating procedures and process for all to follow . If I am understanding this correctly, this would anything that is considered to be an analysis or research that is founded on theories and circumstantial information but have yet to be verified as to validity. The information and data collected still needs to be current, accurate, and based on fact (Junk Science, n.d.) We see the use of junk science mighitly when it comes to forensic examiners present evidence to the courts. The evidence is circumstantial and a working theory but is used to influence the courts, even though there can be signicant errors with; evidence gathering, lack of evidence, and tained evidence. For these examiners, the type of techniques that are "junk science" used to decieve the courts are; handwriting, hair fibers, toolmarks, shoe prints, bite marks, and tire prints. These techniques are based on non tained eyesight, perception, and biased decisions. This can potentionally lead to very resounding mistakes being made. Understanding this techniques is understanding that humans leave an aboundance of trace evidence wherever they have interactions(Barbaro & Mishra,2022). It is for this exact reason why these tecniques can not be classified as concreate and why alot of forensic evidence has been proven to be almost ineffective when it comes to crime solvability (National Archives and Records Administration,2016.) You can never fully determine of the dna you collected is that of an innocent civilian(s) or criminal(s). This is why foresnic examiners can
never give a 100 percent ruling, its always 99.9 percent or less of a chance that it belongs to one person or another. We even have seen instances where only 41.6 percent of the dna evidence was identifiable and the other 58.4 percent is unidentifible. Those numbers drastically increase or decrease depending on the crime scene investigation and those solvability factors and documentation gathered (Warrington, 2016). A popular forensic technique of the aboved mentioned that can be considered to be "junk science" is are bite mark dna evidence. There is no empirical base for a solified expert opinion; it only serves as a subjective speculation masquerading as science. The entire theory surrounding bite mark evidence hindges on a maybe. Thats more than enough evidence to support why bite marks being used in case law and the courts systems, have rendered so many overturned convictions. Charles McCrory v. State of Alabama is a great example of bite mark dna convicting an innocent indiviual. Charles McCrory was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1985 based on the bitemark testimony of forensic dentist Dr. Richard Souviron. Specifically, Dr. Souviron convincingly told the jury that teeth marks” on the
victium were without a doubt made by Mr. McCrory thereby strongly incriminating Mr. McCrory as the person responsible for the murder. With the advancement of technology, Dr. Souviron had to fully recant
his testimony because the evidence showed that Mr. McCrory bite marks were not even presently found on the body. But the reason why the conviction was secued intially is because the bite marks resembled those of the acual perputrator. But is goes to show the power that "junk science" has on these community, because even after that conviction was debunked, here we are about 37 years later and he is
STILL IN PRISON.
Barbaro, A., & Mishra, A. (2022). Manual of Crime Scene Investigation.
Charles McCrory v. State of Alabama. Case Law.
National Archives and Records Administration. (2016). PCAST Releases Report on ForensicScience in Criminal Courts. National Archives and Records Administration.https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/09/20/pcast-releases-report-
forensicscience-criminal-courts
ResourcesJunk Science. The Institute for Criminal Justice Training Reform. (n.d.).https://www.trainingreform.org/junk-science.
Warrington, D. (2016, June 14). Crime Scene Documentation: Start to Finish
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help