Shortcomings of Forensic Science

This guest article was written by Adrienne Carlson, who regularly writes on the topic of forensic science schools . Adrienne welcomes your comments and questions at her email address: adrienne.carlson83@yahoo.com
Her website: http://www.forensicscienceschools.org

There is a forensic scientist inside most of us, the one that comes out and takes over when we watch television serials like CSI and Bones. All that we know about this science comes to us from television. But, sad to say, the idea that forensic science is capable of solving any kind of murder or crime is one that has been perpetrated by television alone, because the reality is far from what we see on TV. Yes, forensic science is useful in helping to solve crimes and bringing criminals to book, but it has a number of shortcomings that sometimes result in the conviction of the wrong person and/or the acquittal of the right one. A few of the shortcomings of forensic science as decided by experts in the field of criminal justice are:

There are no fixed standards for collecting evidence: When the standards vary from place to place and country to country, there is no uniformity. It’s like testing your bodily fluid at different labs and getting back different results. Because only one analysis is conducted, there is no way to verify the accuracy of the results. This compromises the results of the analysis, and you’re not sure whether justice has been served or if the outcome of the trial is a miscarriage of justice.
The scientific practices used to analyze evidence are outdated: Most forensic analysis techniques are outdated, but no attempt is being made to verify their accuracy or even determine if their results are precise and correct. When the methods themselves are questionable, the veracity of the results is definitely in doubt. Practices that have been in use for a number of years are still being used in forensic labs as a matter of routine.
No attempts are being made to develop and incorporate new and relevant practices into forensic analysis: Even though research is being conducted on new and improved forensic techniques, people in this field are still reluctant to usher in the new and throw out the old. Even with forensic science being an important part of most investigative procedures, no real attempt is made to rectify the shortcomings that exist in the methods used to analyze evidence collected from the scene of the crime.
There is no scientific proof to support analytic methods: And most shocking of all, there is no real scientific proof to support the authenticity of the methods being used currently to analyze evidence. When the innocence and life of the accused is at stake, should there not be a more concerted effort to improve the efficiency of forensic science and address its shortcomings?