From its humble beginnings, forensic science has come a long way. For identification purposes, fingerprints have been used for a very long period. The breadth of forensic discoveries and advancements will be extended by this discipline. The tools used today to identify criminal offenders include DNA testing, impressions, and even remarkable UV lights. Without the generous information provided, many cases might have stayed unsolved or been dropped. With today's tests and examinations, old instances can now be revived and further evaluated. Of the five types of forensic analysis, that id DNA, Computer drives, Handwriting, blood patterns and statements, computer drives forensics analysis is emerging very prominently (Noon, 2009). This is attributed to the fact that many critical information can be found in a computer drive. Emails, letters, spreadsheets, contact lists, deleted items, history of websites visited and much more can easily help in investigations. The only surest way to rid such information is to destroy the hard disk
In the near future advanced network forensics and analysis will be in use to manage the ever increasing crimes committed through computers. Such analysis will enable acquisition of evidence from different kinds of network devices being in use. This can further be attributed to the fact that a network is common to through the whole life cycle of an incident.
Nevertheless, scientists should not be overconfident with the use of forensic science. There have been prominent miscarriage of justice recently in Australia that have a link to forensic evidence. They have happened on various grounds: laboratory contamination or the crime scene; imperfect suspicions by judges and jury’s process and disagreements about 'reliable' logical and forensic evidence like in the case of R v Jama and R v Chamberlain.
In the case of R v Jama, Mr Jama was indicted for an assault, which atually never occurred and was condemned to six years' detainment. Consequently, he was imprisoned for 16 months. In reality, cervical fluids removed from the accuser professedly had semen similar to what was in Mr Jama's report on the DNA record (Szego, 2017). It was the only available evidence ensnaring Mr Jama. As a matter of fact, there were no eye witnesses, no CCTV film at the scene, no unique mark evidence or other organic evidence to verify the DNA result.
The choice to continue on DNA evidence only was erroneous. Consequently, Szego (2017) established that the use of DNA evidence resulted in a relatively mysterious faultlessness that empowered its environment to be ignored (Szego, 2017). Just a few weeks before the hearing of the case, the public understood the potential mistakes in the examination and elucidation of the DNA outcomes. Actually, there was proof that the police officer in charge of the case had researched into the probability of defilement (Szego, 2017), however was consoled that this was impractical. Based on this consolation, the officer arranged a brief of evidence.
Truth be told, Mr Jama was in the same laboratory as the plaintiff a few hours to her meeting. However, his test had nothing to do with the current case. The plaintiff and him had forensic tests conducted by a similar specialist. In this manner, it was found that the room had not been cleaned sufficiently after the two specimens had been taken.
Following R v Jama case, alerts should now ring at whatever point DNA evidence is given as the main or conclusive evidence of a crime. R v Jama sets up the unmistakable obligation of legal structures and legal advisors to give and embrace training programs about potential dangers to the respectability of forensic science. It features the significance of asking the correct inquiries pre-trial and demanding full exposure of all possibly important data by those responsible for the collection of DNA information in criminal examinations.
In like manner, on account of R v Chamberlin, Lindy Chamberlin was convicted of the murder of her infant while the family was on holiday in the Northern Territory. She was the subject of a standout amongst the most prominent cases this nation has seen, and in addition the subject of the film and book, 'Abhorrent Angels'. Her husband, Michael, was also sentenced being an accomplice in the crime sometime later, as it was charged that he helped Lindy discard the body (Simper, 2010). From the start, Chamberlain asserted that a dingo had taken her infant, Azaria, from the family tent. This record was apparently laughed at by the public, media and jury alike. In any case, a Royal Commission founded in 1986 to examine the feelings, inferred that the evidence acquired impressive support for the view that a dingo may have taken the child, also reasoning that the master logical evidence exhibited at trial, fundamentally added to the wrongful feelings (Simper, 2010). Of specific significance was the evidence of a forensic researcher who affirmed that a 'critical' amount of fetal blood was available in the Chamberlain's car. It was later discovered that there was a solid likelihood that the 'blood' was really ‘sound deadening compound' containing no blood by any means.
After three years, while Lindy managed everyday life in a Darwin jail, police researching the demise of a fallen climber found Azaria's jacket close to a dingo cave, and the Australian public went up against the truth that its justice framework had fizzled. "A Cry in the Dark," a film featuring Meryl Streep, conveyed the account of Lindy's wrongful conviction crosswise overseas (Simper, 2010).
In essence, wrongful convictions often result from mistaken eyewitness testimony (for the most part the slightest solid evidence in a trial on account of predispositions and the traps of memory), yet Lindy Chamberlain was indicted by defective forensic evidence and by agents and prosecutors unwilling to reexamine their suppositions notwithstanding conflicting evidence. The trial of Lindy Chamberlain, and her partner Michael, is a useful example that everybody who hones forensic science ought to deliberately consider.
The wrongful conviction of Mr. Jama and Lindy Chamberlain provides a good example of how DNA evidence can lead to wrongful convictions. The cases bring to light a variety of the aforementioned factors and areas of concern, such as the fact that Chamberlain was exposed to faulty evidence from the investigators, and experienced a ridiculously lengthy amount of time in prison. His charges were later dropped when the police found Azaria’s jacket in a dingo den (Simper, 2010), further supporting that such investigation techniques played a vital role toward producing his wrongful conviction.
Since the aforementioned discussions and analysis have made it clear that DNA evidences can impact juror decision-making, and that in some studies judicial instructions to disregard DNA evidence was not appropriately considered, it is easy to see the importance and necessity of restructuring the application of jury instructions (Simper, 2010). In Australia, it is the trial judge who informs jurors that certain information is to be weighed and specially considered. This process is done at the end of a trial before the jury is to go into deliberations. The judge summarizes the facts of the case and then explains to the jury how they are to interpret all of the evidence.
Likewise, conviction of children under 18 experience similar shortcomings regarding interrogation process. The infamous Central Park Five case occurred in 1989 and involved five young males that were between the ages of 14 and 16 years old. They had been picked up in the middle of the night and were subject to 14-30 hours of interrogation before they confessed. Moreover, they did not have their parents present, nor did they have assistance of counsel. The interrogation processes included no food, drinks, or sleep, they were told that their friends were confessing to the crimes already and that they would not get in trouble if they confessed, they were threatened with jail, and were questioned aggressively. They were convinced by interrogators to tell stories of the incident, using details that were provided by the interrogators themselves. The boys claimed just wanting to go home and admitted to making up the stories just so that the interrogation would end. Moreover, the stories between the five boys did not even corroborate one another, making it even more evident that they were manufactured on the spot, and yet, somehow all five confessions were used in Court and managed to contribute to their wrongful convictions. This is just one example of how legal actors can easily influence young persons and induce confessions based on their persuasive interrogation techniques.
It is evident that forensic science mistakes are not only implicated in minor offences such as assault or theft, but rather for the most serious offences such as rape and murder, whereby a suspect’s entire life is on the line, contributing to the notion that mistakes in forensic science are a serious matter of concern (Noon, 2009). Furthermore, these exonerations exemplify the strength of confession evidence, and once they have been presented in a trial it is difficult to break the chain of events that follow.
In order to prevent this from continuing to occur, numerous rules and regulation should be put in place. The rate and incidence of failed forensic science is unknown, but they have been recognized to occur. Arguably, as the exoneration rate is increasing and Commissions are finding more cases that warrant appeals, the number of wrongful convictions involving forensic science will increase as well. Further, the severity of the types of cases that can involve forensic science is recognizable reporting over 300 post-conviction exonerations involving rape and/or murder, and that 30% of those cases involved forensic science as a contributing factor (Noon, 2009).
Wrongful convictions remain to be no small issue. They subject innocent people and their families to a lifelong tragedy. This is why it is so important that inquiry is targeted at any factors that contribute to the likelihood of their occurrence. Hence, although in Australia, the adversarial nature of the justice system may tend to put the focus on solving cases and winning, the preference should always be to prevent miscarriages of justice rather than submitting to practices that put innocent people at risk.
References
Noon, R. (2009). Scientific method: Applications in failure investigation and forensic science. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Simper, E. (2010). "Discovery of jacket vindicated Lindy". The Australian. Retrieved 20 December 2017, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/discovery-of-jacket-vindicated-lindy/news-story/7ddecc2792ee7da942c0de57fd7042a9
Szego, J. (2017). Wrongfully accused. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 20 December 2017, from http://www.smh.com.au/national/wrongfully-accused-20140323-35cga.html
