Should privacy and ethical concerns prevail over public safety and national security?

Assignment Brief

Module Code: CR3013Module Name: Forensic Science and Criminal Justice

Assessment type: Essay

Assessment weighting: 100%

You are required to write one essay selected from the titles below. The assignment should be 2000 words in length. You should submit your assignment on the submission date indicated on Blackboard and as per the submission guidelines given.

Summative assignments handed in late will incur the penalties specified in the student handbook.

Do NOT write your name on any part of your assignment

On the front page include:

1. your course and module number
2. date of submission
3. title of your assignment (this should use the original wording of your chosen essay/assessment task)
4. the word count (excluding reference list)

Word process your essay:-

1. Set the text at one and a half spaces
2. Use font size 11 or 12
3. Format paragraphs clearly, leaving a space after each paragraph
4. Number the pages

Reference your essay using the system outlined in the University’s Harvard referencing guide (available via Blackboard and from the Library website).

Include a correctly set out reference list which begins on a new page.

Students who fail to follow these guidelines may lose marks.

Assessment questions:

1. Critically consider how the implementation of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has influenced the effectiveness of forensic databases from a policing perspective. Should privacy and ethical concerns prevail over public safety and national security?
2. Critically consider how forensic science practices could lead to miscarriages of justice. Can current policies and legislation prevent further miscarriages of justice from occurring?
3. Critically consider how forensic science practices are portrayed in CSI and similar programmes. How might these portrayals impact (positively or/and negatively) on at least two aspects of the criminal justice system?

Sample Answer

Forensic Science and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes, Policies, and Preventative Measures

Introduction

Forensic science has become a central tool in modern criminal investigations, providing evidence that can either convict or exonerate suspects. While advances in forensic techniques have greatly improved crime detection and prosecution, they also carry the risk of contributing to miscarriages of justice when misapplied or poorly understood. This essay critically examines how forensic practices can lead to wrongful convictions or acquittals, with reference to real-life cases. It further evaluates whether current policies and legislation are sufficient to prevent such errors or whether additional safeguards are necessary.

How Forensic Science Can Lead to Miscarriages of Justice

Human Error and Poor Practices

Forensic evidence is vulnerable to human error, including misinterpretation, contamination, or biased analysis. The 1999 case of Sally Clark, wrongfully convicted of murdering her two infant sons, partly relied on flawed forensic pathology. Expert witness testimony was later discredited, revealing how overreliance on authority figures can distort justice. In forensic labs, inadequate training, poor quality control, and lack of standardised procedures can result in misleading outcomes.

Misleading or Junk Science

Some forensic methods lack a robust scientific foundation. For example, bite mark analysis, hair comparison, and bloodstain pattern analysis have all been criticised for lacking reliability and objectivity. The Innocence Project (2022) notes that misapplied forensic science was a contributing factor in nearly 45% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA evidence in the US. Courts may accept such evidence due to the perceived infallibility of science, even when the techniques used are questionable.

Cognitive Bias and Pressure

Forensic scientists may be influenced by confirmation bias, especially when they know the expectations of police or prosecutors. Studies (Dror, 2009) show that knowledge of case details can subconsciously affect how evidence is interpreted. Additionally, resource pressures and tight deadlines may lead forensic experts to cut corners or accept weak evidence.

Lack of Regulation and Oversight

Historically, forensic laboratories have operated with varying levels of regulation, particularly in non-DNA disciplines. This inconsistency contributes to unreliable results. The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 in the UK aims to strengthen oversight, but challenges remain in implementation and enforcement.

Continued...