Ethics in Forensics (CRCJ 4387-003) - Notes

**CRCJ 4387-003 Careers in Forensics** **Ethics in Forensics** - **What is ethics?** - A guiding philosophy - Principles governing an individual or group - Discipline dealing with what is good and bad with moral duty and obligation is "Arbitrary rules that define app...

**CRCJ 4387-003 Careers in Forensics** **Ethics in Forensics** - **What is ethics?** - A guiding philosophy - Principles governing an individual or group - Discipline dealing with what is good and bad with moral duty and obligation is "Arbitrary rules that define appropriate behavior in *personal* and *professional* life" - Why both areas? - Descriptive accounts of standards for behavior - When people are affected by each other's actions - Specific to various groups - **Ethics vs. Morals** - **Morals -- personal guidelines, values** - **Ethics -- broader guidelines for groups** - Accounts for individual morals - Legitimate expectations of one another - Guidance on how to live - Not meant to dictate actions - Protect individual\'s rights and group's rights **An important component to ethical decision-making is being able to observe the issues from multiple perspectives.** **Factors to Consider when Making a Decision:** - **Circumstances of the situation** - **The people involved** - **The potential consequences of actions (or inactions)** - **Whether the decision is right for the person as an individual, a professional, and an ethical person.** Ethical decision-making involves at least four primary components: - **Identifying the moral issues of the decision** - **Understanding the standards that are applicable to the situation** - **Being aware of the magnitude and complexity of the situation** - **Being willing to make difficult decisions and stand by them** **ETHICS IN FORENSIC SCIENCE: FORENSIC PROFESSIONALISM** **Education:** - **Learn morals from the time we are children** - **Dependent on factors such as culture, region, family, nationality, religion, etc.** - **Informal education - may have downfalls** **Guiding Principles of Forensic Science:** 1. **Professionals should be technically competent and use reliable methods** 2. **Honest about qualifications and area of expertise** 3. **Honest about data and basis for exams, conclusions, and opinions** 4. **Objective in review of evidence and testimony** Expectation*s* of the Forensic Scientist: - **Be objective** - **Conduct all necessary examinations** - **Be honest and trustworthy** - **Be competent and reliable** - **Stay current** - **Be informative** - **Be efficient** - **Obey the law** - **Take social responsibility** **Teaching Ethics in a Forensic Science Discipline is Not Easy!** - **Historically, there seems to be a lack of ethics training in crime laboratories and related forensic fields. Practitioners and Lab Directors are asking questions about how to teach ethics.** - **"First, it is commonly thought that those with the highest ethics will enter the field.** - **Second, it is commonly believed that ethics are learned over the course of one's life so that formal training is unimportant.** - **Finally, resources in forensic science are sparse so when a forensic scientist receives training it should be on topics directly related to their job duties." (Text, Chapter 2)** **Education:** - **Formal education is needed** - **Most classes are "general" and more philosophical** - **Nature of the field should be addressed** - **Not intended to teach right from wrong** - **Should include discussion and scenarios** Most common form of individual misconduct in the forensic science field is the misrepresentation of background or credentials. - **Top issues:** - **Fabrication/fraud** - **Falsification** - **Plagiarism** - **Origins of fraud** - **Career pressure** - **Belief in shortcuts** - **Thinking things do not need to be reproducible** - **Incompetence** - **"Lacking necessary ability or skills"** - **Not legally qualified** - **Inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose** - **Lacking the qualities needed for effective action** - **Unable to function properly ** **Austin Police Department Crime Laboratory: Scott Milne** **Competence:** - **Varied training and experience** - **Inconsistent** - **Creates public uncertainty** - **Who decides?** - **Other professionals** - **Judges -- expert?** - **Jury -- believable?** - **Self-determined -- less credible** **Competence:** - **Pressures** - **Accuracy** - **Efficiency** - **Speed needed** - **Training (budget, time, availability)** - **Completely objective analysis?** - **Reasonable?** - **Straightforward?** - **Importance** **So why is ethics important?** - **Basis for personal and professional behaviors boundaries** - **What is/is not acceptable** - **Consequences** - **Importance** - **Awareness of differences** - **Potential impact** - **Decrease pressures** - **Recognizing issues, or potential issues** - **Understanding what to do** - **Learning from mistakes** **Standards:** - **Quality Assurance** - **Codes of Ethics** - **Management** - **General ideals of science** - **No universal standard for ethics** **National Academy of Science (NAS) Report -- 2009 Report** - **"Strengthening Forensic Science in the US: A Path Forward"** - **Accounts for various disciplines** - **Standards, ideas, structure, problem areas** **"The National Academy of Sciences formally recommends the following":** **2013 - National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS) - Began as part of the Department of Justice** **The Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)** **Originally housed within the NCFS to provide standards and guidelines to the field. The mission is to strengthen the professional practice of forensic science.** **The Attorney General\'s National Commission on Forensic Science\'s (NCFS) charter expired on April 23, 2017.** **American Academy of Forensic Sciences: A Position Statement: The American Academy of Forensic Sciences supports the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences report *Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward* 1 (NAS Report).** From among the various views and recommendations espoused, we particularly emphasize, endorse and promote the following principles: 1\. All forensic science disciplines must have a strong scientific foundation. 2\. All forensic science laboratories should be accredited. 3\. All forensic scientists should be certified. 4\. Forensic science terminology should be standardized. 5\. Forensic scientists should be assiduously held to Codes of Ethics. 6\. Existing forensic science professional entities should participate in governmental oversight of the field. 7\. Attorneys and judges who work with forensic scientists and forensic science evidence should have a strong awareness and knowledge of the scientific method and forensic science disciplines. - - **(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjelvix.com%2Fblog%2Fquality-assurance-vs-quality-control&psig=AOvVaw1o71zQ3ruI8PCnnLxdDRgv&ust=1645550750433000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAsQjRxqFwoTCKCtkrSokfYCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAS)** - **The main goal of a quality assurance program is to lend credibility and weight to the work of employees. This in turn makes the lab's product and services more valuable to its customers.** - **Quality Assurance Plans address:** - **Organization & Management of Lab** - **Proficiency Testing** - **Safety** - **Validation** - **Evidence Control** - **Employee Qualifications and Training** - **Reports** Quality Assurance/Quality Control: - **If a forensic lab does not have the proper QA plans in place nor QC actions occurring regularly, then the job of the forensic scientist is ineffective.** - **All forensic labs need to be able to instill confidence in the judicial system that the product they produce is of the utmost quality.** **Competency vs. Proficiency Tests:** - **A competency test is the evaluation of a person's ability to perform work in a functional area prior to the performance of independent case work.** - **Proficiency testing is a quality assurance measure used to monitor performance and identify areas in which improvement may be needed. Proficiency tests may be classified as: (1) an Internal proficiency test is one prepared and administered by the laboratory; (2) an External proficiency test, which may be open or blind, is one which is obtained from a second agency.** - **Be objective** - **Conduct all necessary examinations** - **Be honest and trustworthy** - **Be competent and reliable** - **Stay current** - **Be informative** - **Be efficient** - **Obey the law** - **Take social responsibility** Type I and Type II Errors: - **"An example is when a test confirms the presence of blood, even if the substance is not blood. False positives cause type I errors in which innocent people are falsely incriminated. On the contrary, if scientists do not run positive controls, it could lead to false negatives or a conclusion that a bloodstain is something other than blood. Such conclusions cause type II errors in which people are falsely exonerated from a crime they actually committed". (Houck and Siegel, 2006).** - **Which is worse: Type 1 or Type II Errors? "...Type I error is much worse than Type II error because the law would rather someone be wrongly set free than wrongly imprisoned." (Houck and Siegel, 2006).** Crime Laboratory Problems: Misconduct - Sizable workload with substantial backlogs. - Chain of custody - Turnaround time for testing - Preservation and sampling of evidence - Providing adequate reports - Accreditation and Certification (Not Mandatory in all Jurisdictions) - Allegiance to a particular agency: Police, District Attorney, Medical Examiner, etc. - Funding **Conflicts of Interest:** - **What is this?** - **Occur when personal *interests* conflict with professional *obligations*** - **Exploit position or knowledge for personal gain** - **Benefiting from something that you should not** - **Abusing power or authority** - **Appearance** Difficulty: **No standard rule as to what circumstances create a conflict of interest** - **Instinct and observation** - **Best actions:** **St. Paul, MN Crime Laboratory -- 2012** - **"Two public defenders became educated in DNA and noticed problems in this lab.** - **It became clear that in the laboratory, training on drug testing was lacking, there were no written procedures, testing instruments were not properly maintained, and basic scientific guidelines were not being followed (Mohr, 2012).** - **Major flaws were found that did not stop at drug evidence but included fingerprints and crime scene processing. Issues included problems with documentation, contamination of instruments and work surfaces, faulty techniques, unsecured data, unfamiliarity with basic scientific principles, and inadequate methodology. It was recommended that the laboratory cease work, though none of the issues were deemed intentional by the reviewers.** - **The knowledge possessed by the public defenders in this case led to the exposure of many issues in the St. Paul Crime Laboratory. This case shows the need for training and continuing education of scientists and lawyers, as well as the value of laboratory accreditation to establish standards and guidelines." (Text)** Oregon State Police Crime Laboratory -- 2013-2015 - **"Nika Larsen was a forensic scientist and crime scene investigator for the Oregon State Police Crime Laboratory convicted of stealing drugs from the laboratory. Between January 2013 and August 2015, Larsen stole pills from more than 50 pieces of evidence (Augenstein, 2016).** - **The investigation at the laboratory showed evidence tampering and missing evidence. The impact of Larsen's actions includes a review of more than 2,500 cases, hundreds of cases that need to be retried, and nearly 100 pending cases that have been thrown out due to the circumstances." (Text)** Florida Department of Law Enforcement - **Joseph Graves was a crime laboratory supervisor in Pensacola, where he handled more than 2500 cases in 35 counties. Upon reevaluation of drug evidence, it was found that 100 pills were missing, and the remaining evidence had been replaced with over-the-counter medication. Graves' charges included grand theft and drug trafficking.** Potential Considerations for Dealing with the Above Type of Cases in the Future: - Background checks upon hire for scientists, to include history of substance abuse - Random drug testing for scientists - Evidence access, chain of custody, and access monitoring - Lack of oversight and possible mismanagement - Need for additional and better trained evidence custodians - Security issues - Increased work for the same number of scientists - Laboratory policies and procedures - The effect of a single individual's actions on the number of cases, people, and funds harmed **ETHICS ACROSS VARIOUS FORENSIC PROFESSIONS -- RELATION** **Criminal Justice System** **Causes of Ethical Issues for Law Enforcement?** **High Public Trust, Role Models (always on duty), Need for Coping Mechanism, Potential for Corruption, High Stress, Pride versus Ego, Accountability, Discretion** **Discretion: *the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation*** - How does it impact the Law Enforcement Organization culture? - How does it impact society? - What are the limits? **Police Culture: protects the fraternity's behaviors, practices, and activities from the public** - Exposure and accountability - Idea of fitting in and loyalty - Good: Strengthens the bond - Bad: Discourages reporting misconduct - Code of silence **Law Enforcement Pressures:** - Responsibility to be ethical - Professional privilege + power + influence - "Freebies" - "CSI Effect" - Political factors - Some issues overlap between Forensic Science and Law Enforcement and may influence ethical behavior **Pressure to Forensic Scientists: Both have an obligation to the law; however, Law Enforcement does not have to:** - remain unbiased - conduct [all] necessary examinations - Goals - Procedures - Purpose **Pressure to Forensic Scientists: Forensic scientists are subject to pressures from four distinct sources:** - Law enforcement- who are usually clients - Judicial system- which will evaluate data - Science - on which data is based - Personal- sense of individual morals and professional ethics **Ethics in the Legal Profession** **Attorneys *should:*** - Not deliberately deceive the court - Be willing to make sacrifices for what they believe is a good moral cause - Not exchange money for wrongful purposes or in wrong amounts - Avoid harming others in the process of helping the client, but have loyalty to the client - Make their own moral decisions and act consistently - Law is based on precedence - No standards on which to base ethical actions or resolve conflicts (personal or professional standards?) - Exchange being "good people" for being "good lawyers" **Categories of roles for an Attorney:** 1. "Hired gun" or legal advocate - plead the case without regard to others and without feelings of guilt 2. "Godfather" or guru - tells the client what should be done regarding the case 3. "Friend" or client centered - can persuade the client not to act unethically or immorally Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys: - **Created by the American Bar Association (ABA)** - Standards for conduct - Relationships - Behavior - Use of media - Conflicts of interest - Integrity of profession Misconduct of Attorneys: - Fraud, false promises, and/or threats - Ignoring, misrepresenting, or misusing evidence - biased experts are used, - test results are suppressed, or - expert findings are overstated - Continues because it works - Confidence and performance level increase - Prosecutor "good guy" Pressures to the Forensic Scientist: - Resisting attorneys who want testimony that supports their client's position - Evaluations that prove disadvantageous to the side that has retained them - Being approached for a combination of advice, evaluations, and expert testimony (i.e., private experts) - Attorneys who waste time - Experiencing inconvenience or pressure by attorneys, agencies involved, the clients or their family, the court schedule, travel, or accommodations - Having opinions distorted and their reputation impugned - Having testimony countered by an expert who is not on their level of expertise but is still viewed by the court as an expert (e.g., federal agents, police officers) - Unethical to make negative comments about them. Many scientists will refuse to testify in this situation (Hollien, 1990a) - Modern judges, juries, and attorneys may suspect experts of bias and/or wrongdoing because in their past: - experts were part of the criminal justice system, and may have exhibited bias and advocacy - wanted to please their employers - were not sure of their exact role - were not always honest - may have had problems with confidentiality (Hollien, 1990b) How Can the Forensic Scientist Overcome the Pressures Differences? - Find balance to deal with conflicting cultures - Mutual respect, honesty, and an understanding of the other culture - Forensic scientists have a duty to describe the evidence as it *actually is* - Attorneys have a duty to describe the evidence in the *most favorable light* for his/her client - Science verses law (still have problems) Examples of Wrongful Conviction Cases Due to Unethical Actions of Forensic Scientists and Attorneys: Know Details of all Case Examples Below! Fred Zain: A forensic scientist who worked in Texas and West Virginia -- (Know info on Fred Zain in frame below)  (Houck, 2019) Joyce Gilchrist (1948 -- 2015) - **Gilchrist had been testing forensic evidence for the Oklahoma City Police Department for over two decades when she was fired in 2001.** - **An FBI investigation that year questioned the validity of her work, which included testing on DNA evidence such as hair follicles, and recommended the state re-examine her cases.** - **Jeffrey Todd Pierce was found guilty in 1986 of sexually assaulting an Oklahoma City woman. Pierce served almost 15 years in prison of the 65 he was given for the crime. ** - **According to the Innocence Project, Gilchrist\'s forensics testimony was a key piece of evidence in the cases of at least 10 people the organization helped exonerate. https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2015/08/31/disgraced-oklahoma-city-police-chemist-joyce-gilchrist-dies/60726319007/** Bitemark Evidence: **"**William Richards: **spent 19 years in prison for the murder of his wife based on bite mark evidence. After three mistrials, he was convicted during the fourth, leading one to believe that the previous jurors had a difficult time convicting him based on the evidence presented. In 2007, Dr. Norman Sperber stated that ethical consideration led to his change of analysis from that originally testified to in 1997. Dr. Sperber stated photographs and added experience would lessen his degree of certainty that there was some consistency in the evidence photo and with the suspect's canine teeth." (Text)** Keith Allen Harward: **"...spent 33 years in prison for rape and murder because of bite mark evidence. Had the evidence and methods available today been available at the time of his conviction, he would have been deemed as innocent at that time." (Text)** Michael West: **"Michael West was an odontologist from Mississippi who frequently testified that a particular weapon had caused a wound and would match suspects at the conclusion of all others based on bite mark evidence. He supposedly developed techniques for identifying bite marks that no one else could execute. After stating that he did not believe in reasonable scientific certainty as an appropriate standard, he proudly stated that his opinions were based simply on gut instinct. Though West now agrees that bite mark analysis is no longer a valid means of matching a suspect to evidence, his former testimony and practices impacted many cases throughout the 1990s." (Text)** Unethical Behavior: - *Grey area-* occurs when there is more than one right answer - When making a choice about which is "more right" ask yourself the following: - "Could I justify this to if it were on the front page of the newspaper?" - "Can I rely on anyone else to make the decision?" - "Can I live comfortably with this decision?" **Grey Area:** - **When there is more than one answer** - **Following standards does not assure the right behavior** - **Various policies, procedures, goals** - **In disciplines** - **In sub fields** - **In professional organizations** - **In jurisdictions, agencies, departments** - **Having one source of info reduces this** - **Codes try to lessen the burden** American Academy of Forensic Sciences -- Code of Ethics and Conduct **Section 1 - The Code of Ethics and Conduct** As a means to promote the highest quality of professional and personal conduct of its members and affiliates, the following constitutes the Code of Ethics and Conduct that is endorsed by all Members and Affiliates of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences: a\. Every Member and Affiliate of the Academy shall refrain from exercising professional or personal conduct adverse to the best interests and objectives of the Academy. The objectives stated in the Preamble to these bylaws shall be to promote professionalism, integrity, and competency in the membership's actions and associated activities; to promote education for and research in the forensic sciences; to encourage the study, improve the practice, elevate the standards, and advance the cause of the forensic sciences; to promote interdisciplinary communications; and to plan, organize, and administer meetings, reports, and other projects for the stimulation and advancement of these and related purposes. b\. No Member or Affiliate of the Academy shall materially misrepresent his or her education, training, experience, area of expertise, or membership status within the Academy. c\. No Member or Affiliate of the Academy shall materially misrepresent data or scientific principles upon which his or her conclusion or professional opinion is based.\ d. No Member or Affiliate of the Academy shall issue public statements that appear to represent the position of the Academy without first obtaining specific authority from the Board of Directors. **SECTION 2 - MEMBER AND AFFILIATE LIABILITY:** - Any Member or Affiliate of the Academy who has violated any of the provisions of the Code of Ethics and Conduct (Article II, Section 1) within the preceding five (5) years may be liable to formal or informal discipline, to include reprimand, censure, suspension, or expulsion by action of the Board of Directors. **SECTION 3 -- SANCTIONS: If the Board of Directors finds that a Member or Affiliate has committed a violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, the Board may sanction the Member or Affiliate based on the nature of the violation as follows:** a\. If the Board finds that a Member or Affiliate has committed a minor violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, the Member or Affiliate may be censured with a confidential "Letter of Reprimand" or a non-confidential "Letter of Censure." b\. If the Board finds that a Member or Affiliate has committed a serious violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, the Board may suspend the AAFS membership of the Member or Affiliate for a specific period of time. c\. If the Board finds that a Member or Affiliate has committed an egregious violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct, the Board may expel the Member or Affiliate from the membership of AAFS. d\. In determining whether a violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct is "minor," "serious," or "egregious" and appropriate level of sanction to be imposed, the Board of Directors shall consider the following non-exclusive factors: 1\. Whether the violation was an isolated incident or a pattern of misconduct; 2\. Whether the violation was knowing and intentional; 3\. Whether the violation included prevarication, fabrication, deception, or falsification; 4\. Whether accused has acknowledged the ethical violation, taken remedial measures, and/or expressed remorse for the conduct; 5\. Whether the violation resulted in actual harm or the potential for serious harm to the justice system and/or an individual; 6\. Whether the accused has previously been sanctioned for an ethical violation; 7\. Whether the violation involved conduct adverse to the best interests and objectives of the Academy. Lucas (2007) provides the following advice: "Be selfish about your personal and professional reputation, don't make ethics more difficult than they actually are, trust discomfort, and ask yourself what your mother would want you to do, if we apply the fundamental standards of science (Ethics) and personal integrity (morals), all ethical questions can be answered to the betterment of the profession and of society." *All the above information is from the following sources unless otherwise noted:* ================================================================================= **Bowen, R. T. (2018). *Ethics and the Practice of Forensic Science.* Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.**Houck, M. F. (2019). *Successful Expert Testimony.* Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.