TheAgitator.com
Self-Promotion
Monday, July 7th, 2008Dr. Roger Koppl and I have a co-written article (pdf) on reforming the forensics system in the latest issue of Engage, the publication of the Federalist Society.
It’s an interesting audience for these ideas, so I’m curious to see if there’s any reaction.
Shouldn’t that be titled Shameless Self-Promotion? ;-D
Interesting article. Giannelli’s proposal to separate the labs from police agencies is very compelling. All but the largest agencies tend to use state labs (typically affiliated w/ the state police/patrol, etc.), so merger w/ the ME would be an option. Another option would be to have a separate Division of Forensic Science under a state’s Department of Public Safety.
The idea of forensic counsel is a great suggestion. Perhaps a Public Defender’s office could employ such practitioners (as they do investigators) or contract for these services.
Radley’s and Dr. Koppl’s article deals with the lab side of forensics, but in the courtroom, more emphasis is being placed on the crime scene than ever before. An increasing number of police agencies are hiring non-commissioned personnel to perform crime scene investigation duties. I think it is entirely appropriate to hire people specifically to analyze scenes (whether they are sworn or non-sworn), as this allows for specialization. All too often, career police officers assigned to crime scene duties are near retirement and looking for work that doesn’t entail breaking up bar fights and domestics. And rotation in police agencies works to undermine officers who are truly committed to CSI work. CSI’s don’t really require arrest authority. Unlike the television portrayals, these folks don’t interrogate suspects (and shouldn’t as it could prejudice their view of the case). So, Crime Scene is fast becoming a field distinct from traditional police work. I wonder if you have any thoughts about the trends on the field side of forensic investigation, Radley.
In reading your article, you mention that redundancy of forensic testing can actually reduce costs, especially for false convictions. I fear there will be bureacratic or institutional fighting over implementing this. After all, it would be an immediate cost for police and prosecutors which reduces their conviction rates, unless they then put in more effort (meaning more money) to find the actual criminals. In fact, your investigation of Dr. Steven Hayne showed such a mentality on their part.
On the other hand, forcing compliance might actually turn things around, as has court-required video recording of police interviews (dues to misconduct) in at least a few cities. Police did not like it, until they noticed that their convictions actually increased, because they did have the recordings.