Imagine, for an instant, that an innocent person is awaiting a trial that will determine his or her innocence. After a lengthy trial, the grand jury will have finally reached a verdict and will have found the defendant guilty, as a result of irrefutable forensic evidence. That person will now been convicted and held in custody until a sentence is determined, which will either be life in prison or the death penalty. Although this type of scenario is appalling, there have been all too many similar circumstances happening within the last decade. Due to these instances, the field of forensic science has been undergoing serious scrutiny and questioning, based on the reliability of forensic methods used to deliver accurate exonerations and convictions. …show more content…
Slate’s notion on cognitive bias is that prosecutors will tell forensic analysts what he or she believes will be the result of the tests given, which in turn leads to analysts being unconsciously convinced. Although the work of analysts should be impartial and objective, there begins to be a tendency to look for results that support theories. Most forensic practitioners will ask several questions about the case, even the suspect’s identity, without realizing that “[e]ven the most upright analyst is liable to be subconsciously swayed when she [sic] already has a conclusion in mind” (Slate). Ira Flatow, the host of the radio show, Talk of the Nation, and author of the article, "Analysis: Finding Fault With Forensics”, notes Dr. Koehler, a professor at the University of Texas saying, “one of my concerns is the way it's described by analysts in the courtroom, the way the match evidence is described. And right now there seems to be a kind of culture of exaggeration associated with the traditional forensic sciences.” When analysts begin to overemphasize the strength of certain test results, the jury gets a false notion on evidence, which can lead to wrongful convictions. Although faulty evidence analysis is responsible for a majority of wrongful convictions, some question the errors associated with undertrained personnel in the …show more content…
In his article Giannelli writes “[a]t present, forensic science is virtually unregulated, with the paradoxical result that clinical laboratories must meet higher standards to be allowed to diagnose strep throat than forensic labs must meet to put a defendant on death row.” Due to the lack of any official government regulation, forensic laboratories are lacking skilled and qualified personnel for the field. Forensic scientists are supposed to provide the jury with scientific evidence to aid in the acquittal or conviction of a suspect, but as a result, undertrained personnel have disrupted the consistency of forensics. During Flatow’s interview with Barry Fisher, a crime laboratory director, he asks Fisher’s view on one of the reasons he believes the field of forensic science is inconsistent. Mr. Fisher notes that the increase in demand for forensic practitioners is particularly to blame for unqualified workers (Flatow). Additionally, the increased popularity of forensic science in the last decade, has significantly contributed to the lack of competent practitioners, as well as the CSI