{"title":"Current State of Forensic Science Improvement in the United States: Lessons from Wrongful Convictions.","authors":"J S Morgan","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Advocates and researchers have made many recommendations for forensic science improvement in the United States. These proposals are often motivated by wrongful convictions related to false or misleading forensic evidence. In many cases, the connection between the proposals and the actual experience of wrongful convictions has not been well defined. Further, recommendations may not have been realizable given the structure of the criminal justice system in the United States and the practical realities of forensic science laboratories. Finally, limited attempts have been made to assess recommendations over time to determine the progress of forensic science improvement and elucidate continuing gaps. Reports from the Department of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology are assessed to determine the extent to which their recommendations have been implemented, whether the recommendations align with the actual experience of wrongful convictions, and how the American forensic science community has implemented forensic science improvement. The most successful proposals reflect a broad movement toward quality assurance, improved standards, and organizational improvement in the forensic sciences. Less successful proposals are associated with calls for large federal investments, difficulties in community-wide implementation, or uncertain linkage to foundations in science and practice. Significant progress has been made in the standardization of reporting and testimony, assessment of the foundational reliability of the disciplines, and DNA mixture interpretation. Significant gaps remain to improve medicolegal death investigation, governance, and the implementation of standards. Improved allocation and use of resources will be required to meet continuing challenges in capacity building, training, and proficiency testing, although past experience indicates that both federal and non-federal funding will be required to address these issues. Continued improvement is needed to address the issues associated with wrongful convictions, although forensic science leaders have demonstrated the ability to prioritize improvement initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":38192,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science Review","volume":"36 1","pages":"41-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Advocates and researchers have made many recommendations for forensic science improvement in the United States. These proposals are often motivated by wrongful convictions related to false or misleading forensic evidence. In many cases, the connection between the proposals and the actual experience of wrongful convictions has not been well defined. Further, recommendations may not have been realizable given the structure of the criminal justice system in the United States and the practical realities of forensic science laboratories. Finally, limited attempts have been made to assess recommendations over time to determine the progress of forensic science improvement and elucidate continuing gaps. Reports from the Department of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology are assessed to determine the extent to which their recommendations have been implemented, whether the recommendations align with the actual experience of wrongful convictions, and how the American forensic science community has implemented forensic science improvement. The most successful proposals reflect a broad movement toward quality assurance, improved standards, and organizational improvement in the forensic sciences. Less successful proposals are associated with calls for large federal investments, difficulties in community-wide implementation, or uncertain linkage to foundations in science and practice. Significant progress has been made in the standardization of reporting and testimony, assessment of the foundational reliability of the disciplines, and DNA mixture interpretation. Significant gaps remain to improve medicolegal death investigation, governance, and the implementation of standards. Improved allocation and use of resources will be required to meet continuing challenges in capacity building, training, and proficiency testing, although past experience indicates that both federal and non-federal funding will be required to address these issues. Continued improvement is needed to address the issues associated with wrongful convictions, although forensic science leaders have demonstrated the ability to prioritize improvement initiatives.
倡导者和研究人员提出了许多改进美国法医学的建议。这些建议的动机往往是与虚假或误导性法医证据有关的错误定罪。在许多情况下,这些建议与错误定罪的实际经历之间的联系并没有得到很好的界定。此外,鉴于美国刑事司法系统的结构和法医学实验室的实际情况,建议可能无法实现。最后,为确定法医学改进的进展情况并阐明持续存在的差距,对建议进行长期评估的尝试有限。对司法部、国家科学院和总统科技顾问委员会的报告进行评估,以确定其建议的实施程度、建议是否与错误定罪的实际经验相一致,以及美国法医科学界是如何实施法医科学改进的。最成功的建议反映了法医学在质量保证、标准改进和组织改进方面的广泛运动。而不太成功的建议则与要求大量联邦投资、难以在全社会范围内实施或与科学和实践基础的联系不确定有关。在报告和证词的标准化、学科基础可靠性的评估以及 DNA 混合物的解释方面取得了重大进展。在改进法医死亡调查、管理和标准实施方面仍存在巨大差距。需要改进资源的分配和使用,以应对能力建设、培训和能力测试方面的持续挑战,尽管过去的经验表明,解决这些问题需要联邦和非联邦资金。需要继续改进以解决与错误定罪相关的问题,尽管法医科学的领导者已经证明有能力优先考虑改进措施。