Ethical Dilemma in Forensic Science

Ethical Dilemma in Forensic Science

Abstract

Many observers have stated that the usual court proverb to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is not the easiest to put to practice (Yadav, 2017). In any given circumstance, what exactly does the whole truth consist of? If the whole truth entails sharing of all relevant information with the involved party, what should a forensic specialist do when the prosecutor does not ask for some relevant information? Ethical considerations were invented to help an ethical scientist to reduce such dilemma occurring from various issues in their field.  They are essential for promoting reliability and credibility in the professionalism of forensic science. This paper will be entirely based on examining the ethical dilemma that arises in the course of telling the truth and nothing but the truth. The author of the paper proposes the adaptation of the National Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility for Forensic Sciences. The codes should be trained to all forensics scientists and the implications of failure to follow the ethics taught to the departments.

Keywords: Ethical considerations, truth and nothing but the truth, National Code of Ethics.

Introduction

There is a thin line between trade and profession. The main difference is that the profession is guarded by a code of ethics that each participant is expected to follow.  Formally structured ethics in a multifaceted field such as forensic science should be followed, especially because in this arena, lives literally depend on it. These principles should be understood with clarity since they deliver the critical fundamentals of the ultimate system resulting from the fundamental elements. The main principle of ethics is, to tell the truth, and the whole truth. It forms the unifying baseline for different cultures, societies, and personnel. To create this uniformity, the National Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility for Forensic Sciencesshould be visibly trained and adopted in the forensics department. In the field of forensics, the professionals must follow the notion “The means justify the end” and not the common notion that “The end justifies the mean.” This is to ensure that they observe trustworthiness in every stage when delivering information that will be used to finalize judgment.

Thetrue dilemma in forensics is facilitated by various parameters which include misuse of work, competence, scientific and professional judgments, a delegation of work, avoidance of harm, multiple relationships, exploitation, collecting DNA samples, and informed consent. The proposed resolution towards this ethical dilemma is a well-written list of ethics that every forensic scientist should follow. The adaption of National Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility for Forensic Sciences (NCEPRFS) is a critical aspect towards eliminating the dilemma that arises in the course of telling the truth and nothing but the whole truth because it guides the forensic scientist towards doing the right this..

Ethical issues associated with the truth concept

Professional credentials

Ethical dilemma in the professional credentials involves misrepresentation of the credentials before a judge. It is very likely for forensic scientists to present wrong documents supporting their ability to work in the field, for instance presenting a PhD or a bachelor’s certificate from a specific campus or forging certificates as a forensic pathologist from the American Board of Pathology. Instances also occur when officers forge their employment history just to get job positions. Document forgery is done mostly when the forensic scientist is aiming at impressing clients to show how worth he is for the job. Since there are limited resources that can help to cross-check these certifications, document forgery mostly goes undetected. Telling the truth starts from the foundation, and the forensic scientist has a responsibility to follow up on the background of every employee to ensure that they are actually qualified to work in the department. The education, ethics, and terminology inter-agency working group (EETIWG) developed the NCEPRFS to ensure that all forensic scientists are working within professional competence. A professional forensic scientist is expected to be a holder of a bachelor’s degree, have specialized in a scientific field such as chemistry, physics or biology, according to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). One who is found to present wrong information is bound to lose their job positions and can face jail term too. Therefore, the forensic department should ensure that the NCEPRFS code is highlighted even in job advertisements to warn job applicants of this.

Laboratory analytical procedures

Data from the laboratories are very important for a court of law in making decisions. Most laboratories do have well-defined protocols that ought to be followed during running tests and record of data. Nevertheless, scientists fail to follow these protocols in tests analysis. According to RAND forensic technology survey, there is an urgency in the use of forensic science technology. The key findings from the survey showed that many crime laboratories still hold untested and unprocessed evidence. The question arising from this is, what was used to judge a case now that the labs have so much backlog evidence? It should be a major concern for the laboratory directors to determine how data will be processed on time for a specific case to avoid backlogs as well as judgment based on unprocessed data.

Forensic services have an increase in demand due to the increasing rate of crimes. In the attempt to cope with such demand, the laboratories are more inclined to support the prosecutors more than they do the investigations. Supporting the prosecutors means that data will not need deep analysis to connect every piece of evidence. In the long run, less time is used in data analysis and more cases are taken. However, the question that arises from this is, do the forensic laboratories only care about the many cases they handle or are they determined to produce data that will tell the truth and help fair and just decisions in court? The issue of unqualified laboratory staff, especially in the public labs, is a common thing. The laboratory directors, according to the survey, stated that they often lack the resources to train the staff, which is one of the cause for poor data analytics in the laboratories. Court decisions are also pressing the forensic professionals to improve the competence of their testifying examiners to improve the type of data presented in court. This only shows that the court themselves acknowledge the poor quality data presented to them from the laboratories that interfere with the court decisions.

Discriminating analysis is also quite common in the forensic department. The forensic department is one of the departments that need to observe the art of equality and eradicate discrimination under any basis. Forensic scientists are aware that the court systems are obliged to follow the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees the people of different races equal civil rights. The law forbids any discrimination against the African Americans or any minority group during judgment, yet the issues of discrimination do not seem to cease. In such a particular case scenario, the forensic scientist has not only defiled the 14^th Amendment but has gone against the code of the truth and nothing but the whole truth. Yet, other scientists tend to present results without even running the simplest test. This practice is commonly known as dry-labbing. Forensic scientists have the role of providing clear and concise laboratory results and conclusions because some lives actually do rely on these conclusions.

Implementation of the NCEPRFS could guide the forensic laboratories in the provision of reliable and valid data. The NCEPRFS emphasizes the avoidance of bias and influence, either real or perceived. The forensic scientists are expected to follow this code to the letter. They should conduct full and fair examinations that yield independent, fair and unprejudiced conclusions. The forensic department should not focus on the number of jobs they manage but on the quality of jobs they provide. This is because the NCEPRFS emphasizes on basing conclusions on the standard procedures supported by adequate data, standards, and policies.  Therefore the right equipment must be used, and the competent forensic officers allocated the jobs. Training should help professionals in ensuring sufficiency in their work. The labs should not take up more work than can be handled. Moreover, the labs should be stocked appropriately to ensure that work achieved is reliable and can be used to provide data that will lead to telling the truth and making a fair and just judgment.

Interpretation of analytical data and presentation of testimony

Forensic scientists and commentators have been involved in discussions concerning the professional way that evidence should be presented in a court of law. Bothquantitative and qualitative data has been highly regarded, yet many still argue on themost accurate way of evidence presentation and interpretation. Forensic scientists may actually be faced with the dilemma in data interpretation and testimony presentation. Such dilemmas may include being bias.

Racial and ethnic bias may determine how the forensic scientist interprets data in the court of law to either spare or incriminate a defendant. The forensic scientist also goes science in a court of law, preventing the jury, the defendant and the jury from understanding the information being presented. Yet other ethical issues arising from data and testimony interpretation include the use of confusing and deceptive testimonies. Forensic laboratories may also report a small number of results with less appropriate explanations, information that can hardly be used to pass a verdict. By this, they not only participate in obstruction of justice but also break the code of telling the truth and nothing but the truth.

The NCEPRFS mandates forensic professionals to provide clear and concise data that will help in delivering verdicts. It quotes that scientists should refrain from preparing reports in ambiguous terms, interpretations should be clearly distinguished from opinions, and there should be a disclosure of all involved limitations that will bring invalid references or will misguide the judges of the jury for that case. Bias is also prevented from altering reports and records or withholding any information that would be useful in making conclusions. During data presentation forensics are expected to present accurate and complete data in both reports, oral or written presentations and testimony based on good scientific practices and validated methods. Therefore, the adaption of NCEPRFS will be useful in forensics as it is good guidance for what is expected and what is not expected for the forensic scientists.

Misuse of work

Ethical codes have been formulated all through the world to ensure that the field of forensic professionalism is hardly misused by forensic scientists. The forensic specialist should not, by any chance, use his position to deprive human beings of their universal and civil rights. Cases of ethics violations should be taken seriously, wherein case such happens, then there should be efforts to resolve the situation or damage control. The forensic scientists should avoid the instances of participating in cases that go against the legal, civil or moral rights of other citizens. They should instead use their knowledge to dig out the truth to save a life.

The NCEPRFS specifically quotes that a forensic scientist should avoid participating in any case that leads to the breaking of the law and impairing the moral rights of citizens. The codes expect that all employees will conduct themselves in a professional manner, regardless of the situation. The forensic scientists should serve the community in the best way they can. Therefore, there are not expected to use their position to take advantage of others. The implementation of NCEPRFS will come in handy in the department of forensics. The scientists need to be taught on what is expected during their line of work and the repercussions that come along with misusing their positions.

Competence

All forensic scientists are expected to work to their competence levels basing on their fieldwork experience and academic knowledge. They are expected to become quite familiar with the administrative policies that govern their roles. Competence is vital in forensic science because it determines the quality of work the forensic scientists offer. Forensic scientists have different training and fieldwork experience that involve ethics that is not entirely based on formal education. The contemporary world influence the society’s definition of competence expected from a forensic scientist the competence of an expert witness is determined by a judge who gauges of the scientist is indeed is qualified to be a scientist. The jury also determines if the testimony offered by the expert is reliable.  The issue of competence is an alarming factor in the field of forensics in a big way.

Questions of competence that arise include are unethical actions taken because an officer has the intentions to deceive or because he did not know any better? Is it unethical for one to choose an answer they know is right but haven’t taken the proper steps afterwards? The scientific society has an obligation to the general society to address these issues to promote the competence of the department at large as well as to maintain professionalism and the highest level of integrity. Society will gain a better understanding of the things that have gone a miss in the past and how to prevent reoccurrence in the future. And of course, have to alter the course off unethical practices.

Accountability in the forensic departmentonly shows that even if no department is 100% perfect, the department of forensics has measures in place, and it is thinking ahead in terms of proper behaviour and procedures. The credibility of forensic professionals id determined by how reliable and accurate their work is. It would be hard for anormal person to think to believe that lab specialists must be the main objective based on the nature of the cases presents. For instance, they wonder if a lab specialist will remain impartial when investigating a case of child molestation. Some commentators suggest that forensic scientists need not have details of a case while others feel that details would help in examinations.

Competence comes hand in hand with equality and non-bias. Bias could result from a shortage of time, high expectations from the judicial system or cognitive bias. Bias contributes to negative implication. Therefore it is an issue that must be addressed at length. Bias is being inclined on one side and overlooking another. Cognitive bias and confirmation bias is an issue that has arisen in the field of forensic. It is the duty of forensic scientists to avoid bias in their work. To determine competence, the forensic scientists must consider the complication of the case, their experience and training, and if they are able to devote themselves fully to the case. Also, they should consider their opportunity to consult in a certain area.

The role of a forensic psychologist is to alert the referral source if the foundation of given research will provide a solution to a given question. They should avoid any data misinterpretation. Regardless being aware of legal and professional ethics does not mean that the forensic scientist should threaten or impair the rights of the involved individuals rather he should be sensitive to them and inform them of the concepts theydo not know.

According to the NCEPRFS competence is based on a forensic scientist’s professional credentials and work experience. Competence begins with educational knowledge. Herefore a forensic scientist, is expected to provide an accurate document showing her education experience and areas of expertise. Professional competency is also achieved through training and proficiency testing. The forensic departments are expected by the NCEPRFS to train its staff to ascertain that the professionals are well equipped to handle various cases. Moreover, competency is achieved from accurate data representation and communicating all the information in a clear and concise way. Therefore the NCEPRFS is the right tool that will promote competency that will lead to presenting of the right data, and forensic departments ought to adapt it in their system.

Multiple relationships

Multiple relationships are described as being in a professional duty with the same person; one has a close relationship with outside the job (Shapiro, 2016). When any forensic scientist is mandated by the law to play a professional role to a person with a close relationship, he is mandated to clarify his role anticipations and the level of discretion at the onset of the case scenario. Forensic scientists are not expected to take up a role if they have other relationships that may influence their competency in their duties.

Shapiro (2016), in his research on ethics in the courtroom, presented a case on the dilemma brought about by the multiple relationships. The forensic psychologist was requested to provide treatment to a teenager who was sexually harassed and to present reports of the case progress. At the same moment, she was offered a role as a therapist and not a forensic examiner. A complaint was filed later by the offence that the psychologist was incompetent and lacked to follow the ethical considerations. The psychologist justified herself that her main role as a therapist and not a forensic examiner. However, on the onset of the case, the psychologist did not clarify this role until the complaint came in. During the moment she was given the role of providing care to the child, she failed to clarify that she was providing therapy care and her reports were not to be taken as forensic evaluation.

The NCEPRFS specifically quotes that the professionals should avoid involving themselves in in cases where personal financial or any other conflict of interest prevails. The personal interest could lead to biased examinations or subjective opinions and conclusions. In such a case scenario, the results are that the judgment is likely to be just to one party and unjust to the other. It is, therefore, important that all forensic scientists follow the NCEPRFS guidelines in their roles.

Exploitation

Any forensic scientist is not expected to exploit their associates. These associates may include clientele, patients, people in pupillage and subordinates as well. The forensic scientist is knowledgeable in his work. Some of these forensic scientists take advantage of the fact that they the upper hand to the clients. Since the client has no knowledge of forensics, the forensic scientist may exploit him by overcharging the services or misguiding them. The forensic scientist may also exploit clients by overcharging or prolonging services. They may even demand extra pay so that they can give positive evaluations. Cases of frightening clients or patients to receive unnecessary services may also occur. Exploitation also occurs in the form of discrimination and sexual harassment. The field of a forensic scientist is a field just like any other and cases of sexual harassment and discrimination are bound to occur. All these cases are not ethical, and it is the role of a forensic scientist to avoid them.

Informed consent

Before providing certain services, it is righteous for a forensic scientist to seek the consent of the individual involved and the council representing. In case the individual is incapable of giving consent, such as a juvenile or a mentally handicapped person, then an attorney needs to be involved in providing legal consent. The forensic scientist should also inform the person involved in a case of the various factors that come along with the expected services. For instance, there could be limited confidentiality in the services provided as the information evaluated could be presented in court. Consent is mostly preferred in writing. However, when unavailable, oral consent can also apply. The forensic scientist is heavily obliged to find out if the person is represented by a council or not. Important parameters, such as fees should be settled at the beginning of services. The forensic scientist should also ensure that he considers any factor that may cause bias in his work such as examiner’s competence, scientific basis, personal interests, etc. the informed consent also covers any collateral sources of information that may influence their decision to participate in a certain case.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality is a primary obligation in the department of forensic science. Psychologists, lab specialists, examiners and detectives should all be mindful about the confidentiality of their client. However, in cases where confidentiality is limited, then it should be clarified. Disclosures should only be done with the consent of a client or a legally authorized personnel such as an attorney. However, there is an instance when consent from a client is not needed, only the forensic scientist is mandated by the law or when information is used for further consultation or to protect the client.

Avoidance of harm

There aren’t many cases when a forensic scientist has used their professional role to harm a client intentionally. However, many cases have occurred when harm arises unintentionally. When presented any case, the forensic scientist is expected to consider both short term and long term harm before they provide any evaluation.  Shapiro (2016) presented a case where unintentional harm was likely to occur. The personnel in question was a forensic psychologist who had to give reviews a criminal’s execution. If the psychologist finds that the criminal needed to be executed, then harm is bound to be caused to a life. However, if he is not found competent for execution, then the psychologist would be saving a life.

Ethical dilemmas in forensic genetics

The collection of DNA samples for database is amongst the debated upon issue in forensic science. Cordner (2001), in his research, raised two questions. “Who is responsible for providing sampled with respect to criminals’ investigation? And “Who ought to provide a sample with the profile from which will be stored in a DNA database?” the UK National DNA database was the first forensic database to be established in 1995. Its decision to include DNA profiles on all citizens was heavily criticized as it was measured as a breach of personal space by many citizens.in the case of Marper vs. the UK, the European court of human rights concluded that the stalling the citizens’ breach of personal space (Wallace et al., 2014). There are different criteria applied by different countries on how samples should be obtained. For example, in Australia, samples are taken for the offender’s whos punishment exceeds the duration of 5 years. In an instance, when files are not charged, it is expected that the collected DNA profiles are destroyed. On the other hand, the only DNA profiles for sexual crimes are stored. An audit system to monitor and prevent unethical use of such databases need to be put to place.

Testing the samples

Accurate sample collection, security, transportation, accurate storage, data processing, and analysis are the critical conditions required to ensure high-quality database management. Meeting these conditions results in high confidence and high reliability and validity. During sample collection and testing, contamination can occur during handling and transportation. It could be hard to avoid data contamination, but data examiners should work towards reducing in order to minimize and to estimate the likeliness of error occurrence.

Researchers have gone through the topic relating to ethnic and racial labels to genetic samples. Cases of forensic scientists trying to use the results from genetic research to put ethnic and racial labels on the samples encountered on the crime scene are common. However, many researchers believe that a person’s characteristics and their likeliness to commit crimes are not based on cultural ethnicity or genes; rather, it is based on their surroundings.

Conclusion