Forensic Science

Forensic Science

Forensic science

Forensic science is seen by most practicing forensic scientists as a narrow application of science to law oriented questions. This view is precluding discussion of a more rewarding and useful role for forensic science, as the current model falters under economic and legal pressures. Despite many declared efforts to go beyond the confined paradigm, progresses are slow, and mostly restrict to connect forensic science with investigative efforts. But forensic science has an even broader contribution to bring in relation with models of policing. In order to contribute to the debate, we propose first a return to the fundamentals: the information content of traces found in crime scene investigation. From that, we propose a conception in which forensic science can be most efficient in a so-called intelligence -led framework of policing.

This project starts by taking some distance with traditional law oriented definition of forensic science. We prefer to define forensic science as the study of traces, which themselves are present as remnants of an activity, most often a criminal activity [1]. Traces can be considered as the most basic 'material or physical' information on crime. This definition opens towards new territories to be explored: once detected and collected, they will follow a complex set of intertwined processes that ultimately compose the whole information system. They are collated and interpreted in order to provide knowledge that is used to make decisions at various levels of security systems and criminal justice.

This definition also emphasises that the forensic science community, beyond rare exceptions, systematically privileges one process against others: the use of forensic case data to assist the administration of evidence in the perspective of the court trial. Recent reports, such as the so-called “NAS report” in the United States [2], reinforce this view by suggesting a series of organisational and normative measures for better controlling this specific dimension. Security processes are largely ignored, mainly due to the lack of knowledge about the value they can provide as part of an informed recommendation system. A better understanding on how traces should be treated in order to minimise the risk of miscarriage of justice is expected when one considers the “path forward” proposed. However, even improved, such a model provides very little indications on how forensic case data actually contribute, or should contribute, to decision making in relation to the broader security system. Following another path, it preconises that forensic science laboratories should take distance with law enforcement environments.

Forensic science is often presented as a patchwork of scientifically based disciplines. Over the last few years, stakeholders have been increasingly asked to demonstrate the real efficiency of forensic science, not only in terms of contribution to justice, but also in relation to wider security (e.g. national security), in relation with models of policing, as well as to convince policy makers that it provides a value-added service that is economically viable. Beyond rare relevant holistic researches and proposals [3] and [4], the forensic science community is clearly not ready for this approach, while several ...