The Oncoming Forensic Science Redux

DNA evidence is still a reliable data source for proving guilt or innocence, however, less than 10% of criminal cases have any DNA involved at all.

In recent years, forensic science has long been an accepted method of condemning or releasing evidence that changes the way a trial is settled. When forensic science was first discovered, it was the most technologically advanced method of determining guilt and innocence. Fingerprints, shoe prints, hair analysis, and tool marks all fall under the forensic science category. The most recent form of forensic science is DNA evidence.

For these reasons the criminal justice system is pushing for a complete re-haul of how forensic science is operated. Scientists and criminal justice officials are looking into adding a more computerized method of reading forensic data. It would eliminate the bias that sometimes is used to read forensic evidence. It is hoped that the new ways of reading forensic data would enable the courts to throw out the unusable or unnecessary forensic data and focus on the data that is the true determining factor in the suspect’s guilt or innocence.

A forensic psychologist is primarily responsible for determining the state of mind of the suspect at the time of the criminal activity. He or she is responsible for working with the court system to translate into legal terms the psychological state of the suspect. This process will be affected by the differing methods of reading forensic evidence in several ways.

Turning the forensic readings over to more computerized sources will have an impact on more areas of the criminal justice system than just forensics labs. It will also impact people in juries and forensic psychologists.


If forensic evidence is analyzed by computers rather than people, it could become a much clearer indication of guilt or innocence. For a suspect who has been proven to be mentally incompetent at the time of the crime, this could mean that his or her sentence would become more severe if found guilty. This could be a problem for mentally unstable patients. Their sentences might increase in length and severity.

If juries and other members involved with a trial can clearly see that a suspect was mentally unstable at the time of the crime they will be able to offer a more appropriate sentence.

Another responsibility of forensic psychologists is to provide the level of likelihood that a criminal will offend again. With forensic science providing a better quality of understanding of the situation it will be easier for the forensic psychologist to evaluate the motives and drives behind the criminal’s activities. This could help keep dangerous criminals behind bars while also allowing criminals who are no longer dangerous to become useful citizens again.

Overall, it is likely that forensic psychologists as well as any other professions involved with the criminal justice system will benefit from the new methods of forensic science.