Evidence based on scientific explanations is a good evidence that can be used in the criminal justice system. In addition, these evidences based on forensic science can be very useful and critical where these evidences can free innocently convicted accused. Criminal cases such as Duke lacrosse, David Millggard, Clayton Johnson, and Talao are examples of case that forensic science helped to prove their innocence. However, there is potential possibility that these evidences of forensic science can lead to wrongful convictions when the criminal justice system subjectively look into the scientific evidences.
Michel Shirley in 1987 was arrested in 1987 for the murder and rape of Linda Cooke. Critical aspect to note in this case is that this case demonstrates the consequence when the criminal justice system fails to assign a proper weight to identification evidence(Huff et al, 2008). In this case, other evidences including same outsole of the shoes, scratches, and scars on the face of the accused caused the suspicious about Michel
…show more content…
As explained, subjective bias is a critical risk when considering the evidence in the court. Thus, there is a possibility of subjective bias if forensic scientists are embedded with police institutes. As an example, police organizational culture with the hierarchy has the potential power to eliminate or suppress unfavorable evidences. However, on the other hand, if forensic scientists are independent, there is also possibility of scientists working in favor of their clients’ interest. Therefore, it is an important aspect to consider about how to operate this forensic scientists in fair manner that can favor both police and defendants. Since scientific evidence is a critical component, wrongful convictions can very likely to occur when scientific scientists favor one side over