This two-part episode of Justice Today podcast is discusses how science is advancing criminal justice; it provides a background of the 2009 National Research Council report and the forensic landscape since that report, input from disciplines outside forensics, impact of those changes on crime labs, and how Federal organizations are developing standards for forensic science.
This 14-minute episode of Justice Today looks at the scientific validity of forensic evidence that was questioned in the 2009 National Research Council report, and its impact on the forensic science community as well as in the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Host Jim Dawson discusses the long transition to a more reliable forensic science with guests David Stoney from Stoney Forensic in Virginia, and Greg Dutton, a scientist at the NIJ. The podcasters discuss the changes in forensic science practices and research, focusing on the time since the 2009 report. The guests also discuss the development of the first crime laboratories through today, and how the history of forensic laboratories differs from other fields, the development and changes in standards, the involvement of a greater range of scientists within the forensic science, and the establishment of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees to create standards for forensic science.
In part 2, the three podcasters discuss the long transition to more reliable forensic science practices, focusing on issues surrounding specific types of forensic evidence, such as fingerprints. The three also discuss changes to courtroom procedure regarding judgments on what constitutes quality forensic evidence, using the example of fingerprints, and the forensic science community’s plans for improving how research is done and how it is assessed.