Forensic Science

IV. Conclusion

Due to the wide variation of facets in the forensic sciences, the undertaking of sifting through all methods and techniques of all forensics is the stuff that makes up a complete book, if not a series of books. As outlined in this research paper, a variety of types of examinations performed in forensic laboratories cannot even be assessed with conventional statistics with the exceptions of DNA analysis and blood group typing (which has lost prevalence as DNA analysis gained popularity), and certain analyses of gunshot residue models (Faigman, Kaye, Saks, & Sanders., 2002). Therefore, it is important to cite the variability of the subjectivity and objectivity within these methods and techniques to gain some insight into the overall utility of these analyses as stand-alone pieces of information. David Faigman et al. begin taking on the task of typing many techniques used within the vast fields of the forensic sciences in terms of amount of subjectivity, reliability in the minds of forensic scientists, and their individual susceptibility of attack when measured by the criteria posited by Daubert. Since no aggregate data are available to seek relative frequency probabilities, it is up to the experience of the individual examiner to establish levels of confidence around his or her determinations. The complexities of placing these confidence intervals around scientific testing are apparent to those with even an elementary knowledge of statistics.

The future of forensic science has much to do with evolving with the standards the courts will set over the coming years. If more states were to move to the Daubert criteria for evaluating expert testimony, it is more likely that a portion of the more subjective-heavy analyses of forensic science would be decommissioned. While many would argue that this is a necessary and overdue development in forensic science, a good portion of these forensic services do offer value to investigators that may or may not be lost. For example, there is no reason that investigators or litigants should not continue to use these services to provide this value—it is just that the information found in the final reports of these investigations must be used only to help someone make a case and would not be allowed at trial. As previously suggested, these analyses can lead to further inquiries, which may break cases wide open, whether they are civil or criminal.

As a conglomerate of professions, the forensic sciences are actively overhauling their professional codes of ethics to address the rash of cases in which rogue forensic scientists were falsifying reports, doing bad science, and egregiously overstepping their bounds as expert witnesses. While frauds exist in every aspect of life, any person who harms the liberty of another person just for personal gain or lack of professionalism is surely the most despised from both within and outside of the professions. Even entire crime labs have been identified as corrupt. Accreditation that is monitored by professional organizations, and making these accreditation processes more robust, have been seen as ways to begin to root out such problems before they begin. This accreditation must be maintained throughout one’s professional career and through the duration of a lab’s existence.

On a final note, much investment has been made in professionalization and the encouragement of continuing education and training to assist forensic practitioners in expanding their knowledge base. This will assist these professionals in keeping up with the state of the art in the fast-paced world of science and technology, and their advancement. The most recent U.S. presidents have also made commitments to expand forensic science research and development, particularly in the DNA analysis and human identification areas. Such advances in technology will be key for many years to come in the U.S. criminal justice system’s capacity to solve crimes, seek justice, and learn truths about the many mysteries that will confront it.

Browse criminal justice research papers or view criminal justice research topics.


  1. Butler, J. M. (2005). Forensic DNA typing: Biology and technology behind STR markers. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  2. Clarke, G.W. (2008). Justice and science: Trials and triumphs of DNA evidence. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  3. Coppock, C. A. (2007). Contrast: An investigator’s basic reference guide to fingerprint identification concepts (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
  4. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).
  5. DiMaio, V. J., & DiMaio, D. (2001). Forensic pathology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  6. Durose,M. R. (2008). Census of publicly funded forensic crime laboratories, 2005.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
  7. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (2002). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
  8. Frye v. United States, 293 f. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
  9. Geberth, V. J. (2006). Practical homicide investigation: Tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques (4th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  10. Hanzlick, R. (2007). Death investigation: Systems and procedures. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  11. Hanzlick, R., & Combs, D. (1998). Medical examiner and coroner systems: History and trends. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 870–874.
  12. Hanzlick, R., & Parrish, R. G. (1996). The role of medical examiners and coroners in public health surveillance and epidemiologic research. Annual Review of Public Health, 17, 383–409.
  13. James, S. H., & Nordby, J. J. (2005). Forensic science: An introduction to scientific and investigative techniques (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  14. Joiner v. General Electric Co. 522 U.S. 136 (1997). Karch, S. B. (2007). Drug abuse handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  15. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
  16. Lee, H. C., & Harris, H. A. (2006). Physical evidence in forensic science. Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing.
  17. Maples, W. R., & Browning, M. (1995). Dead men do tell tales. New York: Random House.
  18. Ousley, S. D., & Jantz, R. L. (1998). The forensic data bank: Documenting skeletal trends in the United States. In K. J. Reichs (Ed.), Forensic osteology: Advances in the identification of human remains (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
  19. Peterson, J. L., & Markham, P. N. (1995a). Crime laboratory proficiency testing results, 1978–1991, I: Identification and classification of physical evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 994–1008.
  20. Peterson, J. L., & Markham, P. N. (1995b). Crime laboratory proficiency testing results, 1978–1991, II: Resolving questions of common origin. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 1009–1029.
  21. Pyrek, K. M. (2007). Forensic science under siege: The challenges of forensic laboratories and the medico-legal investigation system. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
  22. Saferstein, R. (2006). Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic science (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  23. Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309, 892–895.
  24. Sauer, N. J. (1998). The timing of injuries and manner of death: Distinguishing among antemortem, perimortem, and postmortem trauma. In K. J. Reichs (Ed.), Forensic osteology: Advances in the identification of human remains (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
  25. Taroni, F., Aitken, C., Garbolino, P., & Biedermann, A. (2006). Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science. San Francisco: Wiley.
  26. Thornton, J. L., & Peterson, J. L. (2002). The general assumptions and rationale of forensic identification. In D. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. Saks, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Science in the law: Forensic science issues. St. Paul, MN: West Group.