Advanced Forensics vs Traditional Investigation

Technology has distinguishlyowed our manhood to be comply much to a greater extent advanced. This was never truer than in the theater of operations of rhetorical science. in that respect was a time where the scarcely try introduced at trials was the murder weapon and the recommendation of an eyewitness. Now we lose deoxyribonucleic acid, hair, fiber, and blot samples to analyze. We imprecate on rhetoricals when decomposed bodies or skeletal corpse are found to provide an identity operator and a cause and time of death. The field of Criminalistics has definitely come a massive way from rightful(prenominal) questioning suspects just now this still carcass a deprecative part of each investigation.It burn down be said that forensic science provides awing answers exclusively the results gutter never have 100% certainty due to kind-hearted error. Traditional investigative methods must go hand in hand with forensic psychoanalysis in the process of ensuring that a ll possible evidence is acquired and a gore has proper information to make a fair decision. Forensic evidence provides some(prenominal) answers to questions that would otherwise rest a mystery. We can take the example of forensic anthropology, or the study of human body.Sometimes the remains are skeletal or so badly decomposed that it is impossible to even come in the victim until an examination is done by a forensic anthropologist. As we wise to(p) in chapter 1 of our text, studying remains as well as the insects and soil found in and around a human body can regularize a time and cause of death. This is essential information useful in conclusion and convicting a suspect. Every type punctuateters expression is contrastive, besides evidence is always required to arouse guilt. Forensic science has become so evolved that traditional methods might be seen as out dated this shouldnt be the case.Interrogating a suspect should be just as important as submitting a DNA sample. No case should swear merely on one or the other. If we consider some of the cases from the past we can see how important it is to have a good combination of both. In the Wayne Williams case there was a huge union of fiber evidence linking him to 12 different victims however fiber evidence is only good when you have a cite to match it to (Saferstein, 2007). If the Atlanta P. D. had not set up a surveillance team up the night he allegedly dumped a body into the river, this case might remain unsolved.An old fashioned stake-out provided a spectacular break for this case. The Manson case is another high profile case that relied heavily on eyewitnesses and informants as opposed to forensics (Bugliosi, N. D. ). In this case the prosecution was able to prove by dint of witness testimony that Charles Manson had almost complete control of his followers. Unfortunately juries do tush a lot of credibility on forensic evidence which might be a cause of the CSI effect (Robbers, 2006). The CSI say has captivated so many plenty with its unrealistic techniques of solving crimes in slight than 60 minutes.Society has embraced its popularity and has come to continue something similar when they land in the control board box. Jurors should not base their decision solely on the fact that they have a forensic scientist confirming a DNA sample match with the suspect. Lets not forget that the scientist making this analysis is human and susceptible to commit errors whether knowing or unintentional. . In recent age many lab scandals have been show from innocent unknowing mistakes to faking tests results. I had come across the story of Mariem Megalla, a forensic scientist who is impeach of falsifying evidence she tested.She is accused of labeling a sample of a hazard drug as supreme when it had really come back with a ban test result (Mangan, 2010). Rather than having it retested, she removed(p) the label off of a positive sample and placed it on the damaging sample . Because of scandals similar to this the Justice for All stage of 2004 was created. This did require strict guidelines, frequent audits and more oversight in forensic labs but this still does not guarantee a mistake proof result all single time. Jurors must always honor this in mind when deciding how much weight to put on any type of forensic science evidence.