Myths & Misconceptions - Correcting the Record

Just as bad science can be devastating to a criminal trial, bad reporting and misinformation can quickly and unfairly erode the public's confidence in the forensic sciences. This results in the passage of poor legislation and the misallocation of public funds.

The following is a list of the ten most common myths and misconceptions that are frequently reported in the media and by organizations who seek to discredit the forensic sciences.

"If crime labs were reliable, mistakes would never happen."

The Truth: Instances of fraud or incompetence will occur with any type of human endeavor or profession, and they must be dealt with aggressively when they intrude on our civil liberties. But there is no way to completely eliminate them. Fortunately in our adversarial system of justice, mechanisms are in place to aggressively evaluate the credentials and disposition of expert witnesses, the appropriateness of the methods they employ, and the scientific reliability of the results they formulate.

"Crime labs should be regulated or subjected to oversight."

The Truth: A crime laboratory is regulated by a judge each and every time it sends an expert to testify in the courtroom. All crime laboratories must operate within the parameters set by statutory or codified rules of evidence; and if they don't, the evidence cannot be admitted at trial. Our state and federal justice systems follow basic rules of evidence and discovery to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the competent handling of evidence. Forensic experts must withstand both the voir dire process, where qualifications are examined, and the cross examination by opposing counsel. Essentially, our adversarial system of justice is designed to regulate the introduction of evidence at trial, and thereby regulate the experts who testify.

In fact, the United States Supreme Court, in the famous Daubert ruling, refers to judges as "gatekeepers." If an expert witness lies or exaggerates in an effort to mislead the judge or jury, he or she can be found guilty of a crime. Therefore, the assertion that independent oversight of forensic science is inadequate or nonexistent represents a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of appreciation for how our justice system is designed to function.  It also ignores the profound impact that accreditation has on forensic science laboratories and the accountability that is built into the accreditation program.

"Clinical laboratories are more reliable because they are federally regulated."

The Truth:  Regulation by the federal government exhausts tremendous bureaucratic energy and resists the progress and evolution called for by the democratic mechanisms that exist within most scientific communities. 

In this regard, the comparison of forensic science laboratories to clinical laboratories is an inappropriate and misleading comparison.   Clinical labs were subjected to involuntary federal oversight with the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) of 1967, which set standards for the analysis of human specimens for the purpose of evaluating health and diagnosing or preventing diseases.  Not until 1988 was CLIA expanded by congress to address growing concerns about the quality of clinical laboratory testing in the United States. 

In science, the consensus opinion of a scientific community carries a degree of authority that reigns supreme.  No legislative body can pass laws that ignore the advancements of science.  Laws can certainly regulate behavior, but science regulates the attainment of knowledge.  Because consensus opinions are critical in establishing scientific standards, accreditation programs that draw from these consensus opinions are the most efficient and constructive way to protect the integrity of a science.

The forensic sciences took a very proactive position in the late 1970's and early 1980's when it became clear that accreditation was a necessary mechanism for crime laboratories to earn the confidence of their customers by demonstrating conformance to professional and scientific standards. Congress didn't need to force regulation upon the forensic sciences because the forensic sciences had done it for themselves in a very thoughtful and responsible manner. 

"Critical industries shouldn't be allowed to regulate themselves."

The Truth: When the tragic collapse of a Kansas City Hyatt-Regency walkway on July 17, 1981 killed 114 people and injured over 200 others, engineers were called in to examine the scene - even though it was engineers who failed to properly design the structure. When doctors botch a surgery resulting in the death of a patient, it is other doctors that must evaluate the situation. The American Bar Association is the governing body for the practice of law in the United States; should lawyers not be allowed to regulate themselves?

Critical self-analysis is the hallmark of a responsible and transparent profession that seeks to continually improve and evolve. It will never be possible to eliminate the effects of human imperfection, but striving for continuous and rapid improvement is the key to ensuring that instances of incompetence, systemic failure, or unethical practices are made less likely each day.

"Crime lab accreditation is too easy - it's one lab director scratching the back of another."

The Truth: Crime Laboratory Directors lose many hours of sleep in anticipation of their coming inspection. The ASCLD/LAB program of accreditation is thorough, comprehensive, and exhausting. But in the end, the laboratory becomes better each time it participates in the process. There is nothing easy or passive about the program.

"ASCLD accredits crime laboratories."

The Truth: No, ASCLD/LAB accredits crime laboratories. ASCLD is the premier society of crime laboratory directors that meet annually to receive training and share information. ASCLD/LAB is an independent non-profit accreditation organization with its own board of directors and funding sources.

"Most forensic cases are exciting mysteries - like CSI."

The Truth: To put the numbers in perspective, only a very small fraction of the cases worked by crime laboratories are "who-dunnit" murders and rapes where the evidence against the accused is exclusively physical or scientific in nature. In the vast majority of violent crime cases, the physical evidence plays a supporting role that augments other direct or circumstantial evidence. In the event a case against an accused individual is solely physical or scientific in nature, it is the responsibility of the courts to apply appropriate scrutiny to ensure that forensic testing was performed responsibly and competently.

A census of publicly funded crime laboratories published by the Bureau of Justice statistics reported that public crime laboratories completed 2.5 million analyses during the 2002 calendar year alone. The most frequent analysis types were broken down as follows:

Controlled Substances 46%
Toxicology 18%
Latent Prints 10%
Crime Scene Processing 7%
Firearms & Toolmarks 4%
DNA 2%

"There are no professional standards."

The Truth: The establishment of comprehensive standards for forensic science were first introduced in 1982 when the Illinois State Police Division of Forensic Services became the first forensic science system to subject itself to accreditation. These standards have continually evolved and improved over the last quarter-century - and will continue to evolve for many years to come.

"DNA is science, fingerprint comparisons are not."

The Truth: It is a common mistake to think that science requires expensive instruments and data print-outs with colorful lines and peaks. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science requires analytical thinking and a dispassionate effort to collect facts that are not tainted by personal emotions and preconceived assumptions.

The examination and comparison of fingerprints, when done properly, is entirely scientific. The practice has been tested for over a century with many opportunities to scientifically falsify the practice if it were unreliable. But such has not been the case. Any unreliability or uncertainty surrounding fingerprint comparisons lies at the feet of the scientists that conduct this type of examination and the laboratory methods that they employ. The science is strong, only the people who use it are subject to error.

"Forensic science has gotten a free ride for 50 years."

The Truth: Forensic science has progressed rapidly and steadily over the last 50 years in large part due to accreditation and the requirement that scientists have requisite academic credentials. As a profession, forensic science subjected itself to critical self-analysis through accreditation long before clinical laboratories, which are often cited as the model for stellar quality-assurance practices, were subjected to expanded federal oversight in 1988.

CRIME LAB REPORT
The forensic science authority for journalism, criminal justice, and public policy.