This debate has been running over many years in the US that separation between police and examiners is necessary.
Separate Police and Labs to Reduce Bias
The most controversial conclusion in the National Academy of Sciences
report on forensic science was that crime labs need to be independent of
law enforcement agencies because forensic scientists who work for police
are prone to subtle, contextual bias, the Las Vegas Sun reports.
"There's a perceived and, in some cases, actual bias whenever
you have laboratory employees working directly for law enforcement,"
said Rick Workman, director of the Henderson Police crime lab. Lab
autonomy is critical, Workman says, "to demonstrate to ourselves, to
ensure, that we don't have bias, perceived or real."
To read the full text, go to
http//
I agree with oyu to some extent. I think what would be smart for LE to do is hire third parties to validate findings on the more complex matters. When it comes to certain issues things are usually straight forward.
How would LE be able to finance that level of outsourced work if the labs were seperated?
How would LE be able to finance that level of outsourced work if the labs were seperated?
I have been watching this matter evolving for the last seven years.
As far as I can tell law enforcement wouldn't be given the finances in the first place but would report the need for forensic services.
I know that I would be willing to help LE at an extremely reduced rate.
As would I…
Greetings,
I think many of us would be willing to help LE out at reduced rates. Bear in mind that there would likely be insurance, facility, and equipment standards we'd need to meet that could drive our costs up for doing the work. Most of these would be one time costs, but not all.
-David
We have had this topic discussed a number of times within our agency and I have had to reinforce the inpartiality of my findings both to managers and prosecution lawyers, whether they like it or not.
My standard response on cross examination about this issue is that I am a scientist (yes , I have a university post graduate science degree in infosec) first who happens to also be in LE and that I follow accepted scientific and forensic protocols. My results would be no different if I was working for the defence and are scientifically testable. If I find there is exculpatory evidence I say so and it will have been disclosed to the defence. That leaves them with having to put up their own analyst to challenge the conclusions.
I attribute a lot of the perception issues to TV shows and the "CSI effect". I imagine all of us here cringe when we see some of the nonsense they show for the sake of drama. The one that really gets me is "Bones" (my wife's favorite). Does anyone really believe a forensic anthropologist from a lab rides around with the FBI and actively engages suspects and so on? I bet a lot of the public do. And just last night on "Criminal Minds" there is a scene where one of the BAU agents announces "I have child porn on the laptop", I sure didn't see any write blocker let alone rebooting into a trusted environment … the BAU agent for heavens sake! Where were their tech crime guys? You can imagine the admissability of THAT evidence.
Dont' get me started on breaking 256 bit passwords in 5 minutes on "NCIS".
No wonder there is a perceived bias.
Isn't the real problem here an overly aggressive culture within some sections of law enforcement which puts undue pressure on forensic scientists? Surely separation of labs from the police is treating the symptom rather than the cause?
Jamie
Greetings,
Two contributing factors in the US are the economic downturn and the increase in digital evidence. LE is trying to process more data with fewer resources. Something has to give….
-David