Ethics Flashcards
Forensic science ethics (4)
- expert witnesses are obliged to
- tell the truth
- state facts without distortion
- use relevant information - not misleading
- properly present evidence
what is meant by professional ethical conduct in forensic science?
the principles, values and constraints imposed on practitioners by their profession and workplace
What is expected of forensic scientists?
- competent
- thorough
- objective
- freely communicate results and significance of their analysis
Outline the role of the forensic expert?
- give expert opinion within an area of expertise
- clarify procedure and interpretations using scientific facts and foundations
- educate jury and aid with their decision making
What does forensic science support?
- forensic science supports justice, not necessarily prosecution or defence
Stefan Kiszko case
- lesley molseed failed to return home after visiting shops in 1975
- she was found three days later and had been stabbed twelve times
- none of her clothing was disturbed but her body had been posed and killer had ejaculated on her undewear
- stefan kiszko case fitted their profile of sort of person likely to have killed lesley molseed even though he had never been in trouble with the police
- police pursued evidence which might incriminate him and ignored other lead that might have taken them in other directions
- acting upon the teenage girls’ information and their suspicions of Kiszko’s idiosyncratic lifestyle - and having allegedly found girlie magazines and a bag of sweets in his car
- the police arrested him on 21 December 1975.
- during questioning, the interviewing detectives seized upon every apparent inconsistency between his varying accounts of the relevant days as further demonstration of his likely guilt
- Kiszko confessed to the crime after three days of intensive questioning. -
- prior to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, suspects did not have the right to have a solicitor present during interviews, and the police did not ask Kiszko if he wanted one
- “…I started to tell these lies and they seemed to please them and the pressure was off as far as I was concerned. I thought if I admitted what I did to the police they would check out what I had said, find it untrue and would then let me go“
- he was sentenced to life imprisonment
- police officers praised by the judge - “..for their great skill in bringing to justice the person responsible for this dreadful crime and their expertise in sifting through masses of material”
- “I would like all the officers responsible for the result to be specially commended and these observations conveyed to the Chief Constable”.
- after spending years in prison and several violent attacks
- and told that he would only ever be eligible for parole if he admitted to having carried out the murder
- he cannot produce sperm
- three females involved gave false evidence which led to kiszkos arrest and conviction and that they had lied for a laugh and because at the time it was funny
- in 2006, ronald castree was arrested in connection with the murder
- DNA evidence was alleged to have shown a direct hit with a sample found at the scene of the murder
What do forensic scientists contribute to in court?
- contribute scientific reliability in court
- ensure guilty receive punishment and free innocent people
what is meant by an ethical dilemma
- a type of ethical issue that arises when the available choices and obligations in the specific situation do not allow for an ethical outcome
What 4 themes do ethical dilemmas commonly follow on?
- truth vs loyalty (choosing between maintaining personal integrity or keeping fidelity pledged to others (e.g. friends, family members, core workers, employers and organisations))
- individuals vs group (choosing between interests of an individual or a few and those of a larger community
- immediate vs future (choosing between present benefits and those that are longer term)
- justice vs compassion (choosing between fair and dispassionate applications of consequences and the individual need)
What are some general guidelines to remaining ethical given by Bowen in 2010?
1 - do not use misinformation to support your claims
2 - do not represent yourself as an expert if you are not
3 - do not use misleading or unfounded reasoning
4 - do not divert attention away from an issue
5 - do not miss use people’s emotions by presenting topics that have little to do with the main idea
6 - do not deceive people of your intentions, viewpoints, or purpose
7 - do not hide potential consequences, positive or negative
8 - do not oversimplify issues to convolute a point
9 - do not advocate the things that you do not support
How does Bowen 2012 identify the four distinct sources of pressure?
- the police service who are usually the clients and submitters of forensic material
- the adversarial system in which results are evaluated
- the science on which our data are based
- our personal sense of ethics and morals
What are some examples of ethical tensions suggested by Bowen
- preparation of reports containing minimal information
- reporting findings without an interpretation
- omitting a significant point from a report
- failure to report or acknowledge any witnesses
- failure to differentiate between opinions based on experiment and opinions based on experience
- expressing an opinion with greater certainty than the data justify
Preece v H.H. advocate (1981)
- long distance lorry driver was convicted by majority of the murder by strangulation in a lorry in Scotland of a woman whose body was found buried on the English side of the border near Carlisle
- principal evidence against Preece had been scientific evidence of blood and seminal stains, hairs, fibres, grass seeds and other material said to link Preece with the victim
- the scientific evidence was given mainly by Dr. C a forensic scientist who made the tests corroborated by a junior colleague who carried out no tests himself
- after preece had been in prison for more than 7 years questions were raised as to the quality of the scientific evidence and the scientific detachment of Dr. C and the case was referred back to the high court
- Dr C had withheld evidence he should have given about the victims blood group, had failed to disclose that stains he had tested were not isolated seminal stains but mixed seminal and vaginal stains, and had reached unwarrantable conclusions thereon
What are the 6 motives associated with the role of expert scientists that result in conflict or tension?
- competition (some people within legal system may see their actions and the consequences as a game or competetion)
- job security (specifically for the self-employed such as independent experts or consultants who will seek to gain further employment and work in this sense
- economic reward (when an expert receives payment to testify about something with the sole purpose of confusing the issue is to damage the opposing side’s case)
- principle (when one expert testifies against another for unprofessional motivations such as revenge, spite, or economic reward
- recognition (forensic scientists may seek recognition and work only on high profile cases)
- ego (some experts may feel that they do not need to prepare as thoroughly for testimony on some subjects because of who they are, the background they have, or the type of case that they work upon)
Dr Joseph Kopera
- this is a case of false credentials and involves a police ballistic expert who worked in the field for over 40 years
- this person was very well respected until it was revealed he did not hold degrees from the Rochester Institute of Technology or the University of Maryland as he had claimed in numerous court cases
- estimated that he testified between 100 and 125 times per year and became the Supervisor of the State Police Firearms and Tool Marks Laboratory in 2000
- at this time he also managed the Integrated Ballistic Identification System (IBIS)
What was said about Dr Joseph Kopera
- many denounced these fabrications - citing that someone who is gone to these lengths to create a false background will go some lengths to fabricate information about ballistics evidence itself
- there were others from the State Attorneys office that thought the lack of a degree was not enough to question evidence from past cases because much of an expert’s knowledge is gained through on-the-job experience