Forensic Science Needs a Lot Less Finger-Pointing and a Lot More Solutions.
Prosecutor, Journal of the National District Attorneys Association 2010, April-June, 44, 2
Journal of the National District Attorneys Association Prosecutor
This book is available for download with iBooks on your Mac or iOS device, and with iTunes on your computer. Books can be read with iBooks on your Mac or iOS device.
A FEW YEARS AGO I addressed an interesting issue in a workshop at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Washington, DC: Who have been the most influential people in the enhancements in forensic sciences over the past few years? The response flowed off my tongue as if I knew the question was coming. Actually, my response was based on impulse rather than thought: Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck. Ten years from now, if I am still around, and that might be questionable after what I am about to say this afternoon, my answer will probably be: Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. I will reverse the order because Barry is sitting in the audience. Barry and Peter and my other friends in the defense bar including fellow Academy board member, Betty Layne DesPortes, and my friend Steve Benjamin, have forced us to take a long hard look at what we are doing in forensic science and they are forcing us to do it better. No matter what the endeavor, professionals at any level improve when challenged. We scientists think of ourselves as purveyors of the truth. We do not argue philosophy; we argue data. We do not appeal to emotions of the heart; we appeal to the processes in the head. However, we have a corresponding responsibility to address issues many of us are not equipped to address.
- Category: Law
- Published: 01 April 2010
- Publisher: National District Attorneys Association
- Print Length: 14 Pages
- Language: English