VENTURA, Noel Christian F.

ANTHRO 1 - TFI
2019-02007 12/29/20

Lives on the Line: Forensics as a Field with Room for Improvement

I affirm Meterko (2016)'s contentions on the limitations of some forensic

disciplines. Unlike serology and DNA testing, other disciplines, which include hair
microscopy and fingerprinting, lack conclusive ability in the identification of perpetrators
of crimes. Meterko (2016) presented two limitations that contribute to the misapplication
of forensic disciplines: lack of standardization (p. 642), and human error (p. 648-649).

Some of the less-developed disciplines within forensics are: hair microscopy, bite
mark analysis, forensic odontology, dog scent evidence, fingerprint analysis, shoe print
analysis, and fiber analysis. Without standardization of procedures and parameters for
identification and comparison, these less-developed disciplines will always be prone to
yield incorrect results. These disciplines' lack of reliability and validity is shown by the
high levels of variance in the evaluation of crime scene evidence. Evaluations will tend
to vary from one forensic analyst to another. One analyst's evaluation of a piece of
evidence might be contrary to that of another analyst. For instance, the same shoe print
might be interpreted as belonging to two different shoes as deduced by two forensic
analysts. As another example, the following predicament is faced by those who perform
fingerprinting: the inability to distinguish between two different fingerprints that look
extremely similar to the naked eye.

Human error is the second limitation that adversely affects the conduct of
forensic analysis. These errors in analysis arising from human negligence are also
known as gross errors (Du, 2017, p. 141).

According to Meterko (2016, p. 648), errors ensue when human bias intervenes
in the analysis of material recovered from the crime scene, leading to misanalysis.
Misanalysis happens as a result of the influence exerted by unnecessary information on
analysts, as asserted by Dror and Hampikian (as cited in Meterko, 2016, p. 648).
Meterko (2016, p. 649) then went on to argue that, when exposed to unnecessary
information about the criminal case, analysts are at risk of making judgements that are
VENTURA, Noel Christian F. ANTHRO 1 - TFI
2019-02007 12/29/20

colored and partial. The integrity of legal proceedings is compromised, and the life of
the accused is at stake, when findings generated by analysts working in laboratories are
inaccurate. For example, an analyst's interpretation of a strand of hair discovered at the
crime scene might be negatively affected, when they learn that the identity of its owner
is a known drug addict. This might lead them to conclude that such drug addict is the
culprit, even if such person unrelated to the case. Another instance would be the
incorrect designation of a blunt item as the murder weapon upon learning of the fact that
it was held by the culprit during the time of the murder. This would turn out to be a grave
misstep, when, later on, it is discovered that the shape of the victim's wound is sharp,
and thus does not match with the said item. In order to prevent gross errors, analysts
must only be given access to information that is relevant to the crime scene material
under study. All extraneous information must be discarded or withheld from them as
deemed appropriate or until after the completion of the analysis.

Standardization of forensic methods is an imperative that would require extensive

scientific research on the physical and chemical properties of crime scene evidence, as
well as the development of accurate and advanced technological equipment for use in
forensic tests. Meanwhile, the elimination of human error would entail reformations to
human behavior both at the individual and organizational levels in institutions that
perform forensic analyses. These two pursuits are daunting, but they constitute an
imperative, that, once fulfilled, would promote the proper delivery of justice, thus
protecting the global population from the universal threat of wrongful convictions.
VENTURA, Noel Christian F. ANTHRO 1 - TFI
2019-02007 12/29/20

References

Du, M. (2017). Analysis of Errors in Forensic Science. Journal of Forensic Science and
Medicine, 3(3), 139-143. doi:10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_8_17

Meterko, V. (2016). Strengths and Limitations of Forensic Sciece: What DNA

Exonerations Have Taught Us and Where to Go From Here. West Virginia Law
Review, 119(2), 639-649. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1043&context=wvlr