Posted: October 15th, 2022

CRJ 530 – Discussion Board #5

CRJ 530 – Discussion Board #5

The committee that was made up of forensic science members, the legal community, and a diverse group of scientists is a committee that I would choose to formulate a report on the state of forensic science. One of the reasons being is because the committee that was focused on identifying the needs of the forensic science community would go over expert testimonies and deliberate over the information that they had heard and received (NAS, 2009, p. 2). They would also review numerous published materials, studies, and reports that were related to forensic science disciplines. A few members of this committee were Harry T. Edwards, who was a Co-chair judge for the U.S. court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Pete M. Marone, who was the director of the Virginia Department of Forensic Science (NAS, 2009, p. v). This committee had a diverse group of members that consisted of medical examiners, forensic science program professors, and attorney’s that can each benefit one another with their knowledge on the topic to help develop recommendations.

The authors of this report meet my level of criteria because they took time out of their own personal day to follow up on relevant studies to help create recommendations that can fix current issues that are being found within the state of forensic science. They were dedicated to the issues, and each one of their recommendations was well detailed in an understandable manner. In my opinion, the members who are involved in this committee should be authorized to make recommendations in the field of forensic because they have shown how dedicated and passionate they are about the topic through their work.

The IAI agreed with the first recommendation that was made by the NAS on how congress should establish and appropriate funds for an independent federal entity, such as the Notational Institute of Forensic Science. One of the benefits that can result from this form of investment is being able to bolster the ability to accurately identify actual perpetrators and exclude those who are falsely accused (NAS, 2009, p. 20). The IAI seems to be falling in line with this recommendation because they also believe that their needs to be an entity that can address the issues that are found within this topic (The International, 2009, p. 2).

Reference

NAS (2009). Executive Summary: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.

The International Association for Identification. (2009). Response to the NAS report.

CRJ 530 – Discussion Board #5

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was the appropriate agency to address and write a report on the state of forensic science (National Research Council, 2009). This is evidenced by the membership of the committee members selected by the NAS to provide insight on the needs of the forensic science community moving forward and to address past nuances and indiscretions that has brought the forensic science field, in general, into much disrepute.

Administratively speaking, because of the broad range of forensic science disciplines, and the disaggregation that exists within the forensic science community, a number of highly recognized and reputable professionals were selected to form the committee to examine the shortcomings and future needs of forensic science (National Research Council, 2009). This included professionals across a variety of disciplines including statisticians, doctors, various members of the forensic science community and other highly recognized, relevant professionals to accurately reflect and capture the constellation of needs within the profession moving forward. As a result, the authors of this report have the credibility, knowledge, and understanding due to the collection of backgrounds represented by committee to speak thoroughly to the field of forensics. Furthermore, because of the breadth and experience of the working group of this committee, this does give the authors adequate authority to make recommendations in addressing the future needs of the forensic science community. Interestingly, the NAS committee recommends the creation of an independent federal forensic science oversight body which they title the National Institute of Forensic Science or NIFS (National Research Council, 2009). This is a hypothetical oversight body created by the committee, because in the eyes of the committee, current federal agencies are ill-suited, for a variety of reasons, to oversee the forensic field in its entirety (National Research Council, 2009). The peculiarity of this recommendation, which is the first recommendation in the report, is that most of the other recommendations rely on the premise that the NIFS is the operating agency to oversee all of the forensic science disciplines even though the NIFS does not exist. Notwithstanding the reliance on a federal oversight body that does not exist, in this case the NIFS, the recommendations advanced by the committee do provide suitable solutions to many of the inadequacies and limitations of the forensic science field. As such, due to the collective nature of this report and given the fact that the committee members selected to produce this report and provide recommendations are representative of the forensic science community in its entirety, the authors of this report should be given authority to make recommendations to strengthen forensic science within the United States.

The International Association of Identification (IAI) is generally falling in line with the recommendations set forth by the NAS. One recommendation advanced by the NAS is the removal of public forensic laboratories from the administrative control of police agencies and prosecutors (National Research Council, 2009). This is advanced as a recommendation so that forensic labs have complete autonomy over their operations. The lack of separation from police agencies and prosecutors’ offices can lead to inadvertent influencing of examiners, which can create examiner bias during evidence analysis. This can have detrimental effects for the forensic science community if examiners draw conclusions because of bias, rather than facts. The IAI however contends that the reason that the NAS committee advances recommendation #4 is to ensure that crime laboratories receive proper funding levels and to further ensure that forensic crime labs’ funding does not get mixed in with police agency funding which could potentially reduce the amount of funding committed to the forensic crime lab (Garrett, 2009). This is a valid concern and although the NAS report does speak to funding concerns when forensic labs are connected to police agencies, the NAS report is more committed to strengthening the forensic science field and it seems like the IAI is interfering with the true flavor of recommendation #4 as set forth by the NAS report. Although the IAI isn’t fully agreeable with the NAS regarding recommendation #4, the concern of the IAI regarding the forensic crime lab receiving the proper funding and attention still forms a valid concern as there is a scarcity of fiscal dollars devoted specifically to the forensic science community (Garrett, 2009).

References

Garrett, R. (2009). Response to “Strengthening forensic science in the United States, a path forward”. International Association for Identification.

National Research Council of the National Academy of Science. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States a path forward. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Response to Classmates’ Postings
Name
Institution

Response to
Brittiny Arredondo’s posting for discussion focuses on the National Academy of Science report released in 2009. The focus is on the committee’s recommendations and the International Association for Identification’s response. The committee’s competency has been well highlighted with Brittiny fully endorsing the committee as one fit to provide the much-needed recommendations as a result of the diversity observed across the board. The panel satisfies Congress’ requirements in terms of those expected to participate (NAS, 2009, p. 1).
The posting also states the need for an independent federal entity such as the Notational Institute of Forensic Science. This goes in line with the three primary purposes of the NAS committee in regards to forensic science advances (NAS, 2009, p. 4). An independent entity will assist reduce wrongful convictions, provide higher reliability when it comes to identifying perpetrators, and boost homeland security.

Response to
Morgan Schindel’s posting for discussion also focuses on the NAS report released in 2009 and the IAI response in regards to forensic science advancement. According to the posting, the committee is more than capable of fulfilling its mandate. By having reputable professionals and experts from different disciplines that deal directly or indirectly with forensic science, the committee is well balanced, experienced, and knowledgeable to provide relevant recommendations.
Morgan’s posting goes into detail regarding the recommendations, especially the creation of an independent federal forensic science oversight body, NIFS. This is the first and primary recommendation as the others rely on NIFS’ existence. The NAS report states that there is a significant disparity among the existing forensic science operations compounded by a lack of standardization, certification, and accreditation of staff and laboratories (NAS, 2009, p. 6), which is in line with the posting’s argument on the need of NFIS.

References
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The National Academic Press. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf

Check Price Discount

Study Notes, Research Topics & Assignment Examples: s you read Chapter 7, Stratification, Class and Inequality »The Nursing Evolution