The closure in March of the UK’s biggest forensic science service provider, the Forensic Science Service, has finally led to some news headlines. The New Scientist reported on a survey of forensic scientists, three quarters of whom believe the closure of the FSS will lead to an increase in miscarriages of justice. The weekend papers followed with articles on the closure and increased risk of miscarriages of justice in the Guardian, and a strongly worded editorial in the Observer newspaper: ‘Closing this pioneering unit is a foolish, short-sighted act.’
Blog Editor
Mark Godsey
Daniel P. & Judith L. Carmichael Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; Director, Center for the Global Study of Wrongful Conviction; Director, Rosenthal Institute for Justice/Ohio Innocence Project | Email | ProfileContributing Editors
Justin Brooks
Professor, California Western School of Law; Director, California Innocence Project | Email
Cheah Wui Ling
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore Email | Profile
Daniel Ehighalua
Nigerian Barrister; Project Director, Innocence Project Nigeria Email
Phil Locke
Science and Technology Advisor, Ohio Innocence Project Email
Dr. Carole McCartney
Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Leeds; Founder, University of Leeds Innocence Project | Email | Profile
Nancy Petro
Author and Advocate
Dr. Robert Schehr
Professor, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director, Arizona Innocence Project Email | Profile
Shiyuan Huang
Associate Professor, Shandong University Law School; Visiting Scholar, University of Cincinnati College of Law Email | Profile
Ulf Stridbeck
Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway
Martin Yant
Author and Private Investigator Email | Profile-
What’s interesting is that they’re switching to in-house forensic analysis, which everyone seems to agree will lead to more bias entering the equation. A large number of scientist-respondents to the survey said they feel pressure to arrive at a particular result. That’s going to be more evident when things go in-house. What a shame. Is there a movement at all to try to institute blind procedures or anything to counteract the bias that no one seems to dispute will increase?
There are just so many issues here, the most worrying I believe is the almost 25% cut in forensic science spend in almost all police forces. In response to budget crises (a 20% cut in central funding across the whole police force in England and Wales), they’re cutting their use of forensic science, which also forces the private companies to do ‘bargain basement’ science to stay afloat (and to provide ‘results’ which the police will pay for - which doesn’t include negative findings…). Things are increasingly going to be done either ‘on the cheap’ or not at all, which is a serious worry without even getting onto police bias.
Pingback: Quick Clicks… | Wrongful Convictions Blog