Abstract

This case study of the United Kingdom and the United States of America sheds light on the miscarriages of justice due to the improper use of forensic science. This thesis investigates the misapplication of forensic science in those countries as well as fixing the practical problem through analysis of relevant data and life-stories. The data was collected through library and literature-based searches. Results suggest that the amount of injustices are rampant and relevant using forensic science in the court of law. Although this thesis approximately spans across thirty years, the results are clear and concise across all states within the United States and all boroughs, parishes and cities in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the criminal justice system often works against the interests of the people in nonconstructive ways that put individuals in the position of suffering the consequences. This reveals a divide between the interests of the people and the criminal justice system. Bridging the gap between the people and the criminal justice system may have the potential to improve not only the relations between the two parties, but the overall reduction in the amount of individuals convicted of crimes they did not commit.

Keywords: Forensic science; Injustices; Criminal justice system; Crimes; DNA exonerations; Forensic regulation

Introduction

According to the Innocence Project of the United States, it is estimated that roughly 43% of individuals are wrongfully convicted in the United States due to the misapplication of forensic science. There have been 268 DNA exonerations that were compensated, 190 DNA exonerations that have been worked on by the Innocence Project, 165 assailants identified that were the real culprits, 375 exonerees presently with an average of fourteen years served per individual. Also, around 5,284 years have been served by the convicted. The average age of wrongful conviction is 26.6 with an average age at exoneration of 43. Out of the 375 exonerees, 21 were on death row, and 44 out of 375 confessed and pleaded guilty to those crimes. There is a reporting of around 639 per 100,000 people in the United States that are incarcerated each year; the highest than any other country in the world to date [1]. However, this topic is underreported, understudied and considered taboo.

There is a wide misconception between the science and the criminal justice system, much like the television shows and films depicting these trials. This boasts the over confidence in the system. It brings in the checks and balances in each society, more specifically, the United States and the United Kingdom. The terminology of checks and balances is set to ensure that the governments are checked and balanced, usually with the different branches of government. However, this idea of having checks and balances is widely misconstrued by laypeople. By having checks and balances, it doesn’t mean that it’s entirely correct without some form of another check and balance. Within the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, there is a check and a balance with each branch of the government. One area of the system is checked and balanced using another. However, collectively, each area checks and balances on a large scale. But, studying in detail, the macro representation soon fades into the background, and we achieve a more micro representation. This warrants micro checks and balances to check the macro checks and balances. When digging deeper, it shows the inconsistencies and areas of weakness. Circling back to the misconceptions of forensic science and the criminal justice system, it continues to grow without actually emphasizing the gaps in the policies and the reformations.

Research questions and research objectives

The research questions for this thesis are strictly applying the knowledge of micro studying the area of forensic science and the criminal justice system in the United States and the United Kingdom. Some of the research questions asked are to find the answer and bridging the gap between the two systems. This thesis examines the specific legal codes from each nation as well as the regulations that are followed through the following questions:
i. Have there been attempts to bridge the gap between forensic science and the criminal justice system?
ii. How do these attempts help in finding a solution to the problems faced in forensic science and its regulation?
iii. Is there a possible solution to this problem that can be studied extensively and bring in cohesive and coherent data?
iv. What lengths does each government go in order to find a solution whether to be retroactive or preemptive?
v. Are there any recommendations that can be presented to bridge the gap for future policies?

I gathered the documents from each country to ensure the stability of the research in finding a solution and bridging the gap between forensic science and the criminal justice system. I also implemented specific legal codes from each country as well as six real-life case studies from each country. The purpose is to examine the specific problems that were brought to the court that used forensic science for a conviction. The objective of this thesis is to determine how these convictions could have been overturned through the use of a policy that could have been implemented.

The results of this thesis are intended to further the research into an under researched area of the criminal justice system as well as find new ways to save lives from being imprisoned. Additionally, the results of this research project will be available to increase awareness around this taboo subject of wrongfully incarcerated individuals and their rights. Ideally, this research is intended to provide better services, increase awareness, include an answer to bridge the gap, and contribute to furthering the field of forensic science regulation and criminal justice reformation.

Overview of the thesis

i. In Literature Review, I reviewed the research literature on the brief history of policing in the United States and the United Kingdom from the 1800s to present as well as the legal codes. The review of history is to set the scene to build up knowledge of the conception, implementations and reformations that took place in order to improve results. The legal codes are specific codes that are laws of each country to ensure overall certainty and stability of this thesis.
ii. In Theoretical Framework, I present the theoretical framework of Social Control Theory and Rational Choice Theory in relation to this thesis.
iii. In Materials and Methods, I present qualitative methodology used in this research, and the importance of each case study in relation to forensic regulation. There is further information about the specific individuals used in this thesis as well as the choice of individuals and data analysis. I will also address the study’s limitations.
iv. In Results, I present the resulting themes from both countries that are separated into three major themes: resisting the criminal justice system, guilty until proven innocent, and lack of support.
v. In Discussion, I discuss these results in relation to the research questions and the contribution they make to the research literature in this field.
vi. In Recommendation, I added recommendations on the possible actions for each country that can be proven to work effectively labeled the model policy.
vii. In Conclusion, I summarize the findings of the research, identify areas for further study, and discuss possibilities for the improvement of existing reforms and legal codes.

Literature Review

In this literature review it is composed of a brief history of the United States and the United Kingdom as well as the evidence codes from the federal legal system in the United States of America, and the forensic regulators in the United Kingdom that focuses on forensic regulations within the confines of the legal system. Both systems of government were concerned with the undue consequences that will eventually take place. It is important to showcase these consequences that may have been inconceivable at the time due to lack of scientific discovery. With this in mind, the breakdown continues as follows: History of Policing in the United States of America, History of Policing in the United Kingdom, and Specific Legal Codes in Relation to Forensic Science Regulation.

History of policing in the United States of America

The history began as informal and communal forms that were referred to as the “watch”, or a private-for-profit policing, called “The Big Stick” [2]. The watch system was essentially community volunteers whose job it was to warn the public of any impending danger such as: a murder, break-ins, and/or stealing from shops in the early 1800s. Having a community watch group with community volunteers caused more harm than good. During the beginning of the community watch, it consisted mostly of people who slept, drank and attempted to evade military service as well as individuals who were put there as a punishment. This caused a lot of undue consequences for the American populations in those areas. Moving forward approximately 200 years, a new system of law enforcement was created and consisted of constables and official law enforcement officers that were paid by the amount of warrants they served to the American public.

The “Modern Police” [3,4] shared similar characteristics:
i. Publicly supported and bureaucratic in form
ii. Police officers were full-time employees, not community volunteers or case-by-case fee retainers
iii. Departments had permanent and fixed rules and procedures, and employment as police officers were continuous
iv. Police departments were accountable to a central governmental authority [3].

Switching gears from the northern areas to the southern areas of the United States, going approximately 150 years prior to the acceptance of police forces in the United States, is the creation of “Slave Patrol” [5]. The slave patrol was first formed in 1704 [6], specifically in the Carolina colonies. The slave patrol had three main functions [4]:
i. Chase down, apprehend, and return slaves to their owners which were called runaway slaves
ii. Provide a form of organized terror to deter slave revolts; and
iii. Maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules.

It wasn’t until after the Civil War (April 12, 1861 - April 9, 1865), the secession of the south from the north, ended and President Abraham Lincoln created the doctrine entitled, “Emancipation Proclamation”. To this end, the Confederate States of America kept their slave patrols under secrecy. This led to the eventual formation of the southern American police forces.

Moving forward to the modern police forces in America, these forces emerged as a response to disorder and chaos but, to no surprise, from the mercantile population. The formation of such an entity was developed by the wealthy landowners and mercantilists who used this idea to create the social and public order interests. It had more economic interests in social control rather than crime control. During the formulation, it started as private and for-profit institutions which were too disorganized and too crime-specific. These police forces were not used for the “collective good” [2]. Since conception, its formal function was to maintain a stable and disciplined workforce for the development of a system of control. There was rampant inequality, exploitation of workers with long hours, dangerous working conditions, and extremely low pay. This combination caused political unrest creating threats of revolts. This area opens the idea into the “dangerous classes”. The dangerous classes were individuals who were drunk in public, hooliganism, political protests, and worker “riots” [4]. The terminology was used because, as told by the upper class, these individuals were “biologically inferior, morally integrated, unskilled and uneducated underclass” [4]. This dangerous class was primarily formed of the poor, foreign immigrants, and free blacks [3(29)]. Within the history of policing in America, it was and is notoriously corrupt and flagrantly brutal.

Some of the job functions were not previously listed. These official officers were told to actively participate in vote-buying measures as well as ballot-bon-stuffing. In the United States, the municipal police forces were called “delegated vigilantes” [7]. These delegated vigilantes were to use overwhelming force to instill fear into the dangerous class. With this, they were used to disperse individuals forcefully and violently such as, but not limited to: beating, murdering, severe bodily harm, dismemberment, jailing the individual’s family members, and arresting. This created political unrest which caused issues for the organized police force. There were three issues present at that time [4]:
i. Should police be uniformed
ii. Should they carry firearms
iii. How much force could they use to carry out their duties

The police forces were afraid of being ridiculed if they wore uniforms by members of the town and family. Next, early police officers started carrying firearms and weapons without formal training even if it wasn’t policy. The people believed it would give the police and state too much power, hence a police state. Lastly, it was up to the officers to determine how much force for any given time to control the masses. The politicians, landowners and mercantilists made the police provide services and assistance to political allies and harassed, arrested and interfered with the political activities of their opponents. When the politicians won due to election fraud, an increase in the budget for the police occurred as well as carte blanche with the use of force.

Those terrorized for using their constitutional rights, were furious and decided to interfere in their organized crime unit by revolutionizing the field of law enforcement. This allowed the formation of police commissioners and chiefs who carried out specific functions such as, but not limited to [4]:
i. Establishment of selection standards and criteria
ii. Training for new recruits
iii. Placing police under civil service; and
iv. Awarding promotion as a result of testing procedures

This brings us to the beginning of scientific discovery with increased reliance on technology and scientific aspects of police investigations. It all changed when August Vollmer wanted police to perform like scientists. This was in 1916 when Mr Vollmer introduced crime laboratories. When the discovery of scientific methods to determine the criminal were developed, this became a new job function for the police. Although no specific unit, it was an obligation by the official officers to collect, analyze and determine the criminals involved using fingerprints, serology, toxicology, and chemistry. This has led the police to eventually develop the subfield of forensic science. This was no longer up to the police force.

History of policing in the United Kingdom

The history began a little differently than the United States, as the first professional police force in the United Kingdom was in Glasgow, Scotland in 1800. This police force was not an ordinary police force because it was funded by local taxes and included firefighting duties [8 p. 11377]. Skipping forward approximately twenty-nine years ahead, this brings us to the first professional police force in England which was in London in 1829. The individual who coined the name “Peelers” was Robert Peeler. The reason for its conception was to create order amongst the rising crime rates around England. It was set-up by the Home Secretary after ‘The Metropolitan Act’ of 1829 which allowed the program to start in September of 1829. It included “17 divisions, which had 4 inspectors and 144 constables each” [8 p. 11377]. With inevitability, the first quality of this police force was poor. It started with 2,800 policemen, and only 600 kept their jobs. This is primarily due to the rampant drunkenness. Although this act was created, many parishes decided against the formation of a police force. It was feared by the vast majority that uniformed police may interfere and “arrest opponents of the government, stop protests and destroy the right to free speech”. Thereby was created the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. It allowed the Borough Councils to organize a police force but only 93 out of 171 were organized by 1837. Thus, another act by Parliament was created called ‘The Rural Constabulary Act’ of 1839 which “allowed any of the 54 English counties to raise and equip a paid police force”. In 1840, 108 of 171 boroughs had their police forces. Continuing on to 1842, the creation of the Parish Constables Act was passed due to political unrest. This is in part due to the appointed parish constables being poorly paid, not paid and/or part-time. Also, to add, the parish constables did not want to risk their lives to arrest anyone. By 1844, around 22 boroughs did not have the police force. Around 1850, only 36 counties had police forces. And, in 1855, only 12,000 policemen were in England and Wales. This pushed the legislation back on account that it was slowly implemented because:
i. Police were seen to the population as a way to enforce New Poor Laws
ii. Too expensive
iii. Lack of interest at the local level and poor cooperation between the boroughs and counties
iv. No provision for government inspection, audits, and regulations [8 p. 11377].

This moves to the next year in 1856 where there was the Police Act of 1856 which added the auditing, government inspection, and regulation. This County Borough Police Act forced the United Kingdom as a whole to set up a police force. When deciding the best route for implementation, they took the already used inspections that were in factories, warehouses and education. When this Act took power, it shifted the primary function from the prevention of crime to a crime detector

Again, fast forwarding one year ahead, “the General Police Act (Scotland) 1857 required each Scottish county and burgh to set up a police force” [8 p. 11377]. This brings us to the 1869 National Criminal Record development for new telegraphic communications between departments and the UK government. This also introduced the Criminal Investigations Department in 1877 which was formed with 200 detectives and 600 more added in 1883.

Specific legal codes in relation to forensic science regulation

Although each country: United Kingdom and the United States both have different legal codes and statues that intermingle with each other, there are some key differences that are highlighted in this breakdown below:
The United Kingdom - Forensic regulator: As under the United Kingdom system titled, “Forensic Science Regulator”, the executive summary states an important element used as a basis for all witnesses: The witness’s “duty is to furnish the Judge or jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the Judge or jury to form their own independent judgement by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence.”

The regulation also makes way with the “Obligations” section stating that, “The witness must make it clear when their opinion is controversial and provisional or not properly researched.” They also must notify the court when their opinions change. What is interesting about this regulatory system is the next area under the “Obligations” section: Under Crim PR 19.4(h) (as cited in the Forensic Science Regulator), it states the expert’s report must “include such information as the court may need to decide whether the expert’s opinion is sufficiently reliable to be admissible as evidence.” Next, since the forensic science regulatory system is written in sections, is the introduction. Under the “Introduction” section, unlike the executive summary, it dives further into the regulations that must be abided by: An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion (Re J, supra.).

The court case Medimmune v. Novartis [2011] EWHC 1669 (Pat), at paragraphs 105 - 114 (as cited in the Forensic Science Regulator), discussed the responsibility of experts and those that instruct them to maintain objectivity and impartiality. This brings to the next court case that furthers the notion of objectivity and impartiality: The Whitehouse v. Jordan [1981] 1 W.L.R. 246 at 256, per Lord Wilberforce case (as cited in the Forensic Science Regulator) explicitly stated that the “expert evidence presented to the court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies or litigation.

Going against the forensic regulation system in the United States of America, the case of Re U; Re B [2004] EWCA Civ 567 at paragraph 152 (as cited in the Forensic Science Regulator) states that “[T]he court must always be on guard against the over-dogmatic expert, the expert whose reputation or amour propre is at stake, or the expert who has developed a scientific prejudice.” This is one of the most intriguing points made for the forensic regulation system in the United Kingdom because it adds that impartiality and objectivity is the most important in securing the conviction of the correct individual. Once an expert witness becomes any described, the expert witness can be released from their duties amidst any scientific prejudice. Given that a wellestablished science is usually not needed for more testing, the United Kingdom system explicitly states that: So long as a field is sufficiently well-established to pass the ordinary tests of relevance and reliability, then no enhanced test of admissibility should be applied, but the weight of the evidence should be established by the same adversarial forensic techniques applicable elsewhere.

Moving forward, another section which is not in the United States federal forensic regulation is that “there is no general legal requirement for an organization, or individual, to be accredited to any national, or international, standard before results they generate are admissible as evidence.” There is also the area under the validation of the forensic science used to obtain the conviction or acquittal as per the Forensic Science Regulator, “there is no legal requirement for a technique to be validated before results generated by it are admissible as evidence.” This is also under the R v. Reed & Ors. [2009] EWCA Crim 2698; - Thomas LJ (as cited in the Forensic Science Regulator): “The Forensic Science Regulator... also made clear that he did not consider validation a necessary pre-condition for the admission of scientific evidence, provided the obligations under Rule 33.3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules were followed.”

The United States of America - federal forensic regulation: Under the United States federal codes, there are numerous instances regarding the expert witness’ testimony as well as a lay witness. These are as follows: “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” (Rule 403 – Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons)

By this, the judge can and will impose restrictions depending on the relevancy of the evidence whether it be from an expert or lay witness. Other than this, it formally allows anyone to be a witness that is deemed competent by the court. The caveat is, the witness must have pertinent information and evidence regarding the incident. Introducing another caveat with the witnesses, “any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness’s credibility.” (Rule 607 – Who May Impeach a Witness).

The interesting part of the federal legal codes is the ability of the judge to appoint an expert witness for any case that requires clarity. However, when the judge appoints an expert witness, it goes through a peculiar process (Rule 706 – Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses): On a party’s motion or on its own, the court may order the parties to showcase cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its own choosing. But the court may only appoint someone who consents to act.

As for the role of the expert witness’ role after appointment: The court must inform the expert of the expert’s duties. The court may do so in writing and have a copy filed with the clerk or may do so orally at a conference in which the parties have an opportunity to participate. The expert:
i. must advise the parties of any findings the expert makes;
ii. may be deposed by any party;
iii. may be called to testify by the court or any party; and
iv. may be cross-examined by any party, including the party that called the expert.

Summary: To summarize these two countries in terms of forensic science protocol and specific laws, one can see the main differences between the two. For a more thought-out system for the rules of evidence and expert witnesses, one must turn to micro-studying the specifics in order to gain the maximum approach in order to bridge the gap.

Theoretical Framework

This research takes a Social Control Theory and Rational Choice Theory based approach. This is allocated to the Recommendations chapter of this thesis which will bring forward the idea of furthering the literature and research on this research project. This chapter will first introduce the theory of social control, and then, the theory of rational choice. This chapter also dives into the discussion of how these theories have been used by scholars to advance these frameworks in this area of research.

Social control theory

The theory of social control was conceived as a theory many centuries ago, but it wasn’t until the mid 20th century that criminology researchers generated broad interests into the many aspects. Although this theory has been frequently tested within the scientific community and literature, the crime control policies that have emerged were not so impressive. The Social Control Theory focuses on creating stronger bonds between individuals and society without favoring a more expansive police force and longer incarcerations (Social Control Theory (Criminology Theories) IResearchNet). By focusing on the individuals and society to strengthen bonds, it creates a multitude of projects such as in the United States of America called, “The Boys and Girls Club’’. This club is a test of Social Control Theory that has been proven effective in helping juvenile delinquents. Many other clubs or social groups have put Social Control Theory to the test, however, when it comes to policy making, it proves to be less effective and more difficult. When focusing on this theory itself, the theory states that one must find the meaning of individuals and society, such as: what is an individual, and what is a society. By answering these questions, it can point criminology researchers into the right direction for policy initiatives. Switching to the main area of this research with Social Control Theory is naming the individual and the society. Making an assumption of what it means to be a society is composed of many individuals. By this simplistic definition, it allows a group of individuals within a frame of mind to be called a society much like having the group be called the criminal justice system. Mixing individuals who are outside the criminal justice system, or society in this regard, has caused panic and inconsistencies in controlling the actions of the individuals and the society. When moving on to the Rational Choice Theory, it includes those criminals are impulsive that can resist their impulses based on the cost of their crime.

Rational choice theory

The Rational Choice Theory has merit in the way that it has a subsection titled, ‘Deterrence Theory’. This theory is closely related to cost-benefits analysis, meaning the cost of committing a crime when there are certain deterrents can prove to be nonbeneficial for the crime they want to commit. An example in both countries is: murder. When murdering someone, a criminal may ask themselves if it is worth it to do so, or will I get caught. These are questions before committing the crime itself. Well, the cost of committing the crime in the United States is, in some states, life without possibility of parole. This can deter someone and make them resist their impulses to murder an individual, because they do not want to go to prison for the rest of their lives. In the United Kingdom, with the tariff system, it may be twentyfive years in which the individual must decide whether or not to commit the crime. Although in the United States, the policies to increase incarceration lengths is prevalent and most consistent on both political parties, the cost-benefits analysis may still allow the individual to commit the crime based on the model prisoner system and ultimately pleading guilty to the crime for a lesser sentence. Although I disagree with the main point of this theory such as the definition for example: criminal behavior is not determined by biological, psychological, or environmental factors that are acting upon the person to commit crimes (Rational Choice Theory (Criminology Theories) IResearchNet), I do agree with the notion of choice by the rationality, but there are some determining factors that guide individuals to commit some crimes such as the mentally-ill. This theory negates the mentally-ill by including them in the fact that they are rational individuals capable of deterring themselves from committing these crimes based on punishment. Therefore, according to the definition, Rational Choice Theory cannot be absolute.

Materials and Methods

This chapter will outline the qualitative methodology that is used in this thesis. This chapter also describes the processes used to recruit the research participants, methods of data collection, and data analysis as well as the study’s limitations.

Materials and methods

The materials used were the necessities: a combination of federal codes from each country, state constitutions from the United States solely, and access to government websites. This study is guided by the Social Control Theory and Rational Choice Theory which is appropriate due to the specific aims of strengthening the bonds between individuals and society. Qualitative research methodology was the most appropriate choice for this thesis as it gives the researcher the opportunity to collect and present information from the perspective of the individuals and criminal justice system whilst providing a solid base of descriptive information. Furthermore, qualitative methodology allows the researcher to explore multiple avenues of oppression. This thesis also utilizes the Experimental Criminology Methodology which strives to expand scientific research on social policy in the recommendations chapter. Criminologists use this methodology to approach the emphasis of the importance of obtaining information for the betterment of society and to understand the implications of the criminal justice system.

Data collection

Researching the case studies, specific crimes, and forensic science usage: When researching, I decided to start based on race and ethnicity. However, based on relevancy in the time period 1990 - 2019, it was insufficient. I also decided what types of crimes and evidence which was more sufficient for this research project. Eliminating the race and ethnicity factor, and solely based on the crimes and types of evidence used, brought more cases. What was particularly difficult in selecting these cases was the same crimes that were committed conjointly. This was particularly difficult because so many studies yielded an astounding selection, but with the limitation of six case studies to each country, it would not be wise to include two committed conjointly for the same study. When deciding on the specific crimes committed, I added various areas of expert forensic evidence. Although choosing these specific crimes, they yielded better results with the amount of evidence, court systems and the police work associated. This furthers the theory of Social Control on many levels. Utilizing various research methods on these specific crimes was more beneficial to the Social Control Theory and Rational Choice Theory. The same type of methods utilized in choosing the cases, was applied in deciding on the specific forensic science in each case as well as the determining factor for conviction. Although finding the breakdown of each crime committed, the ultimate issue regarding the conviction was the forensic science used. If pointing towards the most determining factor in choosing the crimes for this thesis, it was forensic science.

Data analysis

After conducting this research, I reviewed each case in brief detail. Furthermore, I included instances of mishaps in the criminal justice system such as the corruption of judges, prosecutions, expert witnesses and the police forces. Choosing the inductive approach for this project, I looked at the themes and patterns, thus observing the social phenomenon through data collection. This approach allowed for the recommendations presented later to be broken down and testable. In this observation of a social phenomenon, it proves to be inadequate and inefficient in nature.

Limitations on research

A main limitation of this research is using case studies from each country. This is a limitation because there may be omissions from court cases. This is a very prevalent and relevant limitation encompassing other countries. The cases must be reviewed in detail to determine the outcome of the verdict. This is essential, however, the cases had proven to be accurate and adequate for this research. Another main area of limitation is the specific legal codes from each country. These legal codes, provided by these governments may not accurately depict the law itself. Although intricate and expansive, the law may not be on public sites. Much like the United Kingdom, the parliament explicitly states the law codes may have been altered and not revised. This is a grave limitation on the legal system. Moving forward, another limitation is the sample size. By sample size of six cases, it is a limitation because it may not accurately depict the criminal justice system. These may be the instances of what the criminal justice system is like in those specific areas. Although there are many limitations expressed in this section, in the following chapter, I present the results produced from this research process.

Results

During the data analysis, there emerged three major themes and patterns. This chapter will be divided in each respective section. The first addresses the many ways resisting the criminal justice system can tarnish and be harsher on those who resist. The second addresses the depiction of the accused as guilty until proven innocent. The third addresses the lack of support for forensic science workers.

Resisting the criminal justice system

This section contains the specific cases in the United Kingdom and the United States broken down into subsections: A Review of the United Kingdom and A Review of the United States of America. These subsections will consist of the individual, the crime committed, the conviction, the type of forensic science used, and the results.

A Review of the United Kingdom: To start out, the timeline will continue as follows (all provided by forejustice.org and http://appeal.org.uk/ innocence with exception of Suzanne Holdsworth) [9]: 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. Sally Clark is now deceased, 42, in 2007. She was wrongfully convicted of killing both of her children due to sudden infant death syndrome. The conviction was based entirely on the medical expert and forensic scientists who assessed the deaths. Both concluded that it was due to natural causes but the medical expert stated it was virtually impossible there would be two child deaths occurring in one family. This led the prosecution to change the medical report to asphyxiation. The report was concealed by the prosecution to gain the conviction highlighting the corruption. Moving to Angela Cannings in 1991 and 1999, the case against her was the exact same of Sally Clark. The medical expert, Sir Roy Meadow, despite being removed from the General Medical Council later, stated that it is implausible for two children in the same household to die. He, once again, concluded it was due to smothering from the mother. This was against other medical professionals, but fit the prosecution’s narrative. Despite the same case for two different women, it was the sole expert witness who was the major determiner for the convictions for both women.

Switching to the beginning of the 2000s, the cases of Mark Kempster (2000) and Suzanne Holdsworth (2005) are next. Mark Kempster was convicted in 2001 for a burglary that used a novel approach to forensic science: earprint identification. He was sentenced to ten years in prison based on this evidence. The earprint was found on the window pane that was neatly preserved, however, the court of appeals deemed it insufficient and weak evidence. It wasn’t until 2008 that it was challenged through better analyses from ear print experts. The research that was found conducting ear print analysis determined that ear prints actually distort greatly compared to a fingerprint. This miscarriage of justice made it to the list due to the novel approaches that were used for many convictions based on inaccuracy and misrepresented assumptions from forensic scientists.

Suzanne Holdsworth was convicted in 2005 based on the severe injuries to Kyle Fisher. Kyle Fisher sustained injuries congruent with a blow to the head which may have caused a seizure and led to his death. Ms Holdsworth was watching Kyle on the day of his death and made the 999 call for an ambulance. Kyle was having a seizure and moving rapidly. He was taken to the emergency care unit where he was pronounced dead. A postmortem was conducted by the medical expert witness who is a Home Office pathologist. His results were a blow to the head causing so much pressure in Kyle’s brain and spinal cord that it led to the seizure. Since Suzanne was watching the child that day, the medical expert witness’ opinion was that Suzanne must have been the person who inflicted the injuries. This forensic evidence was presented in court, allowing the conviction of Ms Holdsworth. Upon further medical tests, the foremost expert in epilepsy seizures came forward to Ms Holdsworth as her expert witness. Professor Guerrini stated that the seizure may have resulted in increased cranial pressure and as for the subdural haematoma (blood pool usually caused by injury), it could not be determined when and how it was caused which was a particularly key piece of evidence brought by Dr Sunter, Ms Holdsworth’s expert witness as well. Also, due to the expansive amount of preexisting related conditions with Kyle, it may have been the cause for his death and not Ms Holdsworth’s fault. Eventually, Suzanne Holdsworth was found innocent after the Court of Appeals decision to hear new evidence. In light of this case, it was peculiar that it involved medical professionals resulting in many differences of opinions about a single death. The controversial nature of these medical professionals resulted in Ms Holdsworth’s conviction and release which is why it was added to this research project [10].

Lastly, this is arguably the most relevant era in forensic science wrongful convictions. These cases go as follows: David Dunbar and Jodie Rana both in 2014. David Dunbar is a special case that used DNA evidence in his arrest. Although the information provided is not special, it is special in this case because it involved drug trafficking into the UK prison system through the use of the spines in books. The book spines were found to have white powder tested by forensic scientists to determine that it contained diamorphine, a very strong opioid used to treat pain after surgery. This violated the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. Regardless, there was DNA that was found on the books and envelopes used to traffic the substances. There was no other evidence linking David Dunbar to the crime other than the match the DNA found on the items. When the results came back, the forensic scientists found they were not able to determine whether or not the cellular material that was detected was from any bodily fluid or saliva. The scientists also expressed the DNA could have been as a result of secondary transfer. The statistical analysis given from the forensic scientists determined it is a one in four million chance it is from another male. The prosecutor brought the sheriff who added that if the appellant licked and sealed the envelopes then it is, by virtue, acknowledging wrongdoing which led to the conviction of David Dunbar. Upon further investigation, the Court of Appeals held a second trial where the judge determined the statistical analysis that implicated and led to the conviction of David Dunbar was not sufficient enough to warrant a conviction. The verdict was quashed and Mr Dunbar was freed.

Switching to Jodie Rana who was convicted in 2015, this case piqued my interest and was put in this research project. This case involves technology creating a digital footprint. The night of the fire, Jodie Rana went out drinking with her friends where her friend Becky was dropped off first at their home. Ms Rana received a phone call from her friend stating they were home. Rana decided to start smoking a cigarette on her way home where she was dropped off at the corner nearly 90 meters away from her front door. At roughly 2:15am, Jodie’s phone connected to her wireless router just eight minutes from the last phone call with her friend up in her bedroom. The prosecution stated she must have been within 25 meters to have happened. Nonetheless, a fire ensued at or nearly around that time. The fire was accelerated from the petrol Mr Rana had at the house. When the house went up in flames, the fire detector went off, and the fire department came shortly after. Ms Rana and her family exited from the upstairs bedrooms by ladder. Afterwards, Jodie fled to her grandmother’s house. She was interviewed by a police officer where she stated her boyfriend threatened to commit a crime like this. She confirmed and wrote it down for further evidence. Although Ms Rana cemented her boyfriend as the culprit, there was no evidence. Ms Rana also has had run-ins with the police making a false report that was brought up at trial. The main piece of evidence was the Virgin wifi router that connected her phone. The conviction was guaranteed by the expert witnesses that conducted the examinations on her router stating that she must have been within 20 to 25 meters away for it to connect. One of the leading expert witnesses in the case for her defense in the court of appeals also conducted their own examinations with an identical model and phone. The expert concluded that the phone can be connected within 72 meters. The prosecution’s expert witnesses conducted further tests and concluded that it can go upwards of 45 meters away which was enough for the defense. All expert witnesses agreed that the results from the tests were accurate and Ms Rana’s phone could have connected at any point when walking from the area she was dropped off. The distance between her house and the point of drop off was not far in which the prosecution heavily relied on in the first case. The defense concluded that she would have walked two to three times that distance, but the timing would be too difficult to commit such a crime. Eventually the conviction was quashed, and she was released.

A Review of the United States of America: We, now, dive into the American cases from the 1990s to 2010s (all provided by innocenceproject.org - USA). Kennedy Brewer is an African American male who was convicted of killing a three-year-old child in Mississippi. The three-year-old was abducted from her home, raped and murdered. The child was eventually found 500 yards away from the house immediately suspecting Mr Brewer due to being at the house the night of the abduction. The police concluded there was no forced entry, however, there was a broken window where the child was sleeping. Mr Brewer was arrested and put in jail for three years before his trial. The prosecution put forth a theory that Brewer must have raped, murdered and brought her to the creek where she was found. Upon discovery, a semen sample was present but deemed insufficient for DNA testing. The medical examiner found bite marks on the three year old during the autopsy where they brought in a forensic odontologist, Dr Michael West. Dr West analyzed the bite marks and determined without a shadow of a doubt that Mr Brewer was the source of these inflictions. Dr West claimed during the trial that it exceeded the expectations of bite mark analysis which led to the conviction. This expert witness was already discredited by the American Board of Forensic Odontology before Mr Brewer’s trial, however, the judge ruled to allow the testimony. Mr Brewer was solely convicted on questionable bite mark analysis despite being unvalidated and from a discredited expert witness. In 2001, the semen was tested and found it excluded Mr Brewer and any of his friends and family members. It concluded it was an unknown male. After this new evidence, the judge ruled to allow him to be moved to a pre-trial detention for retrial. His case was not moved to retrial until five years later. The Innocence Project took over the DNA evidence implicating Justin Albert Johnson, who was one of the original suspects for this crime. Mr Johnson’s DNA matched the semen found along with another child raped and murdered. He confessed to these crimes where another male, Levon Brooks, was convicted of the other rape and murder of the child. Levon Brooks’ conviction was vacated based on the confession of Mr Johnson who stated he acted alone. In all of Mississippi history, Mr Brewer was the first person to be exonerated through postconviction DNA testing.

Continuing on, Horace Roberts in 1998 is a surprising case with an unexpected twist. Mr Roberts and the victim were having an affair whilst the victim was during a divorce. The affair with Horace Roberts was discrete. She was found four days later, strangled and beaten to death roughly a mile away from where her car was found. One piece of evidence found was a watch Mr Roberts wore and gave to the victim, who was found with the watch. Horace Roberts lied on multiple occasions about the affair, but he confessed later on whilst being interviewed by the police. Another piece of evidence was the victim seen with her handbag the day of her murder found in Roberts’ home. Interestingly, Mr Roberts had two mistrials based on the lack of evidence, but on the third trial, he was convicted of second-degree murder. Despite new evidence from the DNA testing, the judge did not grant another trial. Soon after, the DNA identified the victim’s husband’s son, Googie Harris Jr, and Joaquin Leal, the nephew of Harris. In light of this new evidence, the judge ordered the immediate release of Mr Roberts and convicted Googie Harris Jr and Joaquin Leal for the murder of the victim. Mr Roberts was eventually released in 2018.

Switching to the 2000s, these cases focus on Dwayne Jackson in 2001 and Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin in 2004. Dwayne Jackson is an African American male who was convicted in 2003, but the crime was committed in 2001. The case was a Las Vegas woman and her two young daughters who were assaulted by a man wearing a mask and holding a baseball bat. She was forced to give money and drive to an ATM. However, the woman had no money in her account. The intruder, woman and her children drove back to her house where her husband and son were. The husband noticed a man in the vehicle being suspicious and approached. The intruder left the vehicle with the baseball bat. She stated it was a black youth with a ski mask and a blue sweatshirt. Whilst the police were canvassing the area, they came across Dwayne Jackson and his cousin. The police thought that both matched the description of the assailant and followed them. There was a vehicle in the driveway of the house they entered that had a blue sweatshirt and black ski mask that matched the description. The police proceeded to arrest the two where both provided DNA samples. The crime lab in Las Vegas determined the DNA found matched Mr Jackson and charged. The DNA match was the only thing that tied Mr Jackson to the crime and if convicted, he would face a life sentence so he pleaded guilty to a lesser sentence. Unfortunately, the cousin, Mr Grissom, was convicted of manslaughter in California where his DNA was found to match Jackson’s DNA. The forensic laboratory technician accidentally switched the samples before testing the results. This accident allowed the reopening of at least 200 cases handled by the technician. Mr Jackson was fully exonerated eight years later.

Moving to Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin conviction in 2006, it proved to be a miscarriage of justice through the use of DNA and blood spatter analysis. To begin, Ms Williams, 47, and Ms Bareis, 67, were found dead in their home. Ms Williams had a daughter, Samantha, who also lived there. She wasn’t there that night and stayed with Mark Van Sandt. Van Sandt, the next morning, found both women on the ground dead and called the police. Upon arrival, they examined the evidence and found a bloody 10-inch kitchen knife between the victims’ house and Aguirre-Jarquin’s house who lived next door. When Samantha came to find her mother and grandmother dead, she told police that she had a bad feeling about her next door neighbor. Clemente washed dishes and prepped food at a restaurant where the chef noticed the 10 inch knife was missing. The remarks from Aguirre-Jarquin on his recollection of the night of the murders was him and his friends drinking all day and night. He told investigators that he went next door to see if he could ask for more beer. Upon arrival, he found the door open and walked in. He stated he saw both women down on the ground. Clemente claimed to have tried to revive them but could not. He saw the knife next to one of the women and grabbed it to defend himself from the assailant. This left his fingerprints on the knife. Clemente saw no one was there, and he ran next door bloodied to place the items in a plastic bag. He did not report the incident because he is an illegal immigrant from Honduras. During the examinations of his clothing and boots, they were consistent with 64 out of 67 boot marks found at the scene. Furthermore, the bloodstain pattern expert testified that the blood on his clothing was due to splattering from committing the murder. Also, the fingerprint analysis determined it was Aguirre-Jarquin’s fingerprints on the knife. After sentencing Aguirre-Jarquin to death, a claim came forward from the fingerprint analyst’s coworkers stating that the fingerprint was impossible to positively identify. There was a review of this new evidence that concluded Birks’, the fingerprint analyst, findings were impossible. Th judge did not grant a retrial based on this evidence. After this new evidence, a new expert witness came forward and re-examined the DNA and found Clemente to be excluded from the murder, implicating Samantha instead. This was based on over 80 pieces of evidence. A crime scene expert later added the blood splatter on his clothing was from picking up the victims and couldn’t have resulted from the stabbings. The judge, Recksiedler, still did not grant a retrial based on this new evidence. The reason the judge didn’t is because no jury would acquit Aguirre-Jarquin based on this new evidence. Later on, Samantha boasted about killing her mother and grandmother to four people. After her confession, the judge denied the petition for a retrial. The state of Florida forced a retrial vacating the original conviction. When the retrial commenced, the judge concluded a mistrial due to over hearing the jury making claims about researching the case further from outside sources. After this, the judge had to grant another trial but had to recuse herself due to the defense claiming she wanted a second conviction for her application to move to the District Court of Appeals. Under the new judge, the defense obtained information from Ms Bouzigard, Van Sandt’s current wife, contradicting his testimony stating that Van Sandt was not asleep and witnessed Samantha telling him she had a bad feeling about her mother. She left despite numerous attempts from him exclaiming to take her or pay for a cab. Under the direction of selecting a jury, the prosecution heard this new evidence against Samantha and put the focus on her, dropping the charges against Aguirre-Jarquin in 2019.

Moving to the 2010s, we focus specifically on two laboratory technicians that conducted gross negligence in over 34,000 cases combined. Annie Dookhan was a chemist employed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health Drug of Abuse lab that admitted to falsifying evidence. She admitted this in 2012 for nine years. She forged initials of evidence officers in her log book. She reportedly tested over 500 samples per month which was recorded as five times the normal average. Her superiors testified they never saw her face in a microscope and saw she frequently mislabeled and misidentified samples. She even went as far as to add cocaine to samples for convictions.

She would conduct dry labbing (looking at a substance and writing down what you see and claim that is the product). She would routinely fall short in her work and fast track results that put nearly 34,000 people in prison on various charges. Eventually, she was caught and sentenced for tampering with evidence and falsifying results. She was given around five years of incarceration.

Lastly, Serrita Mitchell with over 800 rape kit evidence cases from ten years of working in a medical examiner’s office. For ten years, Ms Mitchell handled over 800 rape cases that resulted in mishandling evidence. Despite Ms Mitchell’s mishaps, she wasn’t reprimanded. Ms Mitchell passed the technical examination but failed the verbal examination. She obtained a raise and the title of Criminalist II despite failed attempts of DNA analyses. Every year Ms Mitchell went through different evaluations where there were more weaknesses. The Office of Chief Medical Examiner did not relieve her of her duties. She would often overlook stains and mixup results. She would also mislabel rape kits. Although the Office of Chief Medical Examiner did not relieve her, Dr Prinz, the head of forensic biology, stated a lot of the mishaps did not result in any wrongful convictions due to reevaluating the cases. She was retrained, however, Ms Mitchell made worse mistakes ending her career.

Guilty until proven innocent

This subsection has been the narrative since the conception of the criminal justice system. The reason for this assumption is based on past cases as evidenced in this thesis. For the majority, one can see that these individuals were the product of assumption from the police departments. Looking at the United Kingdom, the local law enforcement turned towards individuals who did not have anything to do with the crimes. As for the United States, the lengths that some of the prosecutors, forensic scientists and judges went through to convict people is extraordinary. In the following sub-subsection, I will talk about the struggles that the innocent have gone through being wrongfully convicted.
The struggles of the innocent through forensic science: The lives of individuals that have been wrongfully convicted have had a hard life inside and outside prison. For some, so much time has passed, they have a difficult time adjusting to normal day life without the help of the government. Many spend years behind bars despite being acquitted based on forensic evidence but never get a retrial until years later. The individuals presented in this thesis have struggled for the majority of their lives. Some have had their convictions vacated and died shortly after getting out. The case studies presented are few examples with thousands of individuals that have been wrongfully convicted. Some struggles of the innocent are obtaining jobs but employers find them as liabilities. Although wrongfully convicted, these individuals are deemed inaccessible and unable to function properly creating high unemployment rates amongst this population. Another struggle is the community may believe that the wrongfully convicted are still guilty. This causes a rift between family members who are unwilling to accept the new evidence.

Lack of support

The lack of support for forensic scientists has been rampant causing the population to be understaffed and overworked with little compensation and resources. This is evident because of these case studies presented in this research project.
The forensic science community: The continuity of the community is sparse and ill-informed in many cases. The prosecution may have a better expert witness by default for pouring more money and resources into pushing their narrative of events compared to an underfunded expert witness that did not have the means to dispute these claims. This has shifted the focus mainly on the forensic science community, and how there is such a lack of support from not only the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, but the inconsistencies amongst the expert witnesses themselves. Different expert witnesses have found the same evidence in these cases that have extraordinarily different conclusions such as the case of Suzanne Holdsworth. The lack of forensic science support increased workloads and inaccuracies within their crime laboratories as evidenced by Serrita Mitchell who was ill-trained. The lack of funding may have been one of the reasons why she was kept on as a forensic laboratory technician. Lack of funding can increase the lack of support for the forensic science field too. Although many courts rely on these analyses and analysts, the forensic scientists are underpaid and overworked causing many ill-advised convictions. However, the criminal justice system is unwilling to accept any wrongdoing from either party due to their records. This led to the case of Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin where the judge was in the process of applying to the District Court of Appeals. Any wrongdoing may have impacted their chances in becoming a part of that judgeship. This makes the wrongfully convicted wait years before having their cases retried.

Discussion

Throughout this research project, there is a complicated relationship between resisting the criminal justice system and the lack of support for forensic scientists. With resistance mixed with lack of support, it reigns over the individuals having little to no faith in the system. The issues discussed in this chapter show a significant divide between the individuals, the criminal justice system, and forensic scientists, which must be bridged in order to conduct a fair and speedy system. The first section of this chapter will discuss how all of the parties listed have a lack of understanding and faith amongst each other in relation to the oppressive nature of the system. The second section of this chapter will discuss the misconception of the wrongfully convicted, and how these individuals were not acknowledged before and after release. It will also discuss the importance of this identity within society, and how the lack of compassion and understanding is a form of oppression. The conclusion will discuss bridging the gap between all parties.

Resistance: A Lack of understanding or oppression

The individual case studies presented showed resistance and repercussions that occurred from resisting the criminal justice system. Within the United States system, the admittance of guilt has weight on the judge, the jury and the prosecution. By admitting guilt, there can be a plea deal. By not admitting guilt, as previously presented, the judge, jury and prosecution may impose a life sentence (tariff) or death penalty. This is traumatic for individuals who are innocent. As for the oppressive nature of the system, the condemnation of individuals along with other areas of this research have shown a lack of understanding and increased oppression. By allowing prosecutorial misconduct, it adds a lack of understanding and faith in the system and increases the likelihood of oppression amongst the individuals. The amount of corruption can be seen as intentional oppression. The lengths that transpired in this case can be seen as pure recklessness and intentional involuntary enslavement, pushing the notion of intentional oppression. As one can review in Chapter V - Results, the amount of suppression and oppression garnered little support to these individuals including the aftermath.

Prosecutorial misconduct of burying evidence, the courts wanting a swift and speedy conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the police breaking the chain of command and coercively forcing a confession, and the lack of foundation and misapplication of forensic science all contributed to these convictions. Although the system, within itself, is a check and a balance it has proved to be insufficient and bias, allowing minority and ethnic groups be the most vulnerable causing involuntary enslavement and oppression through the use of crime and staunchly conservative incarceration lengths that are not imposed on other groups of individuals such as caucasians.

Misconception along with involuntary identity

The misconception of formerly incarcerated victims of the criminal justice system is seen as taboo without understanding the victim’s pain and suffering. This dives into the involuntary identity of these individuals. The notion of being wrongfully convicted in the eyes of the society is a long, tough and arduous process of emotions that individuals within society deem a liability for businesses and safety. Although these individuals were convicted wrongfully, the identity presented to others is liability and insufficient safety based on how long the individual has been in prison. Some may see the innocent being wrongfully convicted as a sign of poverty or divine intervention. Some may see the wrongfully convicted as the real culprits that somehow bypassed the system. Along with this involuntary identity, the idea of giving money to the wrongly convicted was conceived as a way to combat their newfound poverty. In hopes of the government not being sued by the individuals, they give compensation to help reintegrate into society. When looking back and rereading these cases, the compensation for these individuals, with the exception of Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin (illegal immigrant in the United States), has proved to be a success in ensuring the wrongly convicted are well taken care of financially.

Conclusion: Bridging the gap

The case studies examined often exhibited radically different views on the issues of wrongfully convicted individuals. Though, in these cases, many resisted with few admitting malfeasance, the courts prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to ensure culpability of the individuals. The resistance coupled with the reinforcements of the defense and other forensic scientists often worked against one another, even contradicting each other to the extent of uncovering biases, ill-informed and inadequacies that demonstrated complications. This clearly resulted in the conviction of many innocent individuals who attempted to resist the systematic and involuntary enslavement.

In order to bridge the gap between these parties, they will have to address the reevaluation of the criminal justice system along with their opposing views. Also, to bridge the gap is a reformation imposed by each country’s respective governments to ensure regulations are enforced and handled accordingly. The criminal justice system must focus on protecting their citizens, permanent residents, visitors, and illegal immigrants first and foremost and encourage understanding and restoring faith in the system to be sufficient and adequate. The criminal justice system along with the governments of each country must come to an understanding of what needs to be done in order to combat miscarriages of justice through rigorous evaluations of different approaches and outcomes. This may impose strict barriers that may be conceived as impenetrable, but is a necessity to ensure there are micro checks and balances amongst a system determining the fates of individuals. Bridging the gap to bring these parties together will help ensure and encourage sufficiency, adequacy, fairness, and speediness in trials and convictions of the guilty. This has the potential to improve the lives of individuals who are wrongfully convicted and, subsequently, protect those who may be wrongfully convicted in the future.

Recommendations

Possible actions Example of Model Policy: A Breakdown of the United States

The Model Policy of The Department of Forensic Science for the United States: An Act to Ensure the Limitations, Objectivity, and Reliability of Forensic Evidence and Science

I. Section I. Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to enhance the limitations, objectivity, reliability and interdisciplinary sciences of forensic analysis and testimony in order to ensure a fair, speedy, and accurate criminal justice system that convicts the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and protects the innocent individuals from miscarriages of justice.

II. Section II. Department of Forensic Science

A. It is hereby created The Department of Forensic Science. The Department, as it will be called, shall be composed of the following branches:
a. The executive branch;
b. The judicial branch; and
c. The legislative branch.

B. The executive branch will be comprised of one committee and four sub-committees:
a. Committee of Forensic Affairs
i. Sub-Committee of Federal and State Oversight
ii. Sub-Committee of Professional Affairs
iii. Sub-Committee of Forensic Investigations
iv. Sub-Committee of Licensure

C. The judicial branch will comprise one committee, two sub-committees and one bureau.
a. Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs
i. Sub-Committee of the Supreme Court of Forensic Affairs
ii. Sub-Committee of Forensic Appeals
iii. The Bureau of Forensic Tribunals

D. The legislative branch will be comprised of one committee and three sub-committees
a. Committee of Forensic Legislation
i. Sub-Committee of Congress
ii. Sub-Committee of Federal and State Forensic Evidence Codes
iii. Sub-Committee of Ethical Codes

III. Section III. The Committee of Forensic Affairs

A. The creation of the Committee of Forensic Affairs will be comprised of eleven members chosen as follows:
a. The congress of the United States of America will appoint these individuals given by recommendations from the American Bar Association, American Academy of Forensic Science, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Bureau of Justice Statistics for one term of 4 years with a maximum of two terms consecutively or non-consecutively.
i. Three must have a background in forensic investigations
ii. Three must have a background in federal and state oversight
iii. Three must have a background in professional affairs
iv. Two must have a background in licensure.

B. Under this executive branch, there is hereby the four sub-committees under the Committee of Forensic Affairs and accounted as follows:
a. Sub-Committee of Forensic Investigations
i. Under this sub-committee, it is hereby created solely to investigate negligence, malfeasance, and wrongdoing.
1. Employment is continuous and not appointment
2. Minimum of five years employment in investigations
3. Masters Degree in any field
4. No prior drug use within last three years
5. No prior felonies
b. Sub-Committee of Federal and State Oversight
i. Under this sub-committee, it is hereby created to allow cooperation between federal and state governments and this subcommittee. ii. This sub-committee serves as the intelligence and any coercion from federal and state governments.
1. Employment is continuous, not appointment
2. Minimum ten years working in a governmental agency
in a supervisory role
3. Masters Degree in any field
4. No prior drug use for last three year
5. No prior convictions

c. Sub-Committee of Professional Affairs i. Under this sub-committee, it is hereby created to upkeep and protect The Department by investigating unlawful acts of prejudice, racism, discrimination of any kind, and disputes amongst members from any areas of the Department.
1. Employment is continuous, not appointment
2. Minimum five years in a supervisory role within governmental agency or ten years in a non governmental agency
3. Masters Degree in any field
4. No prior drug use within last three years
5. No convictions

d. Sub-Committee of Licensure i. Under this sub-committee, it is hereby created to accredit, disqualify, audit, and charge licensing fees to individuals and laboratories within the United States of America.
1. Employment is continuous, not appointment
2. Minimum ten years doing licensing affairs, conducting audits, administrative duties and payroll within a governmental or nongovernmental agency
3. Bachelor’s degree in any field
4. No prior drug usage within last three years
5. No convictions

IV. Section IV. The Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs

A. The creation of the Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs will comprise the Supreme Court of Forensic Affairs’ eleven members appointed for a minimum of eight years with the option of reappointment by Congress of the United States of America for a maximum of two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive.
a. The Congress of the United States will appoint these eleven members from the American Bar Association, American Academy of Forensic Science, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure, the American Psychology Association, and the American Biology, Chemistry, and Pharmacy Association.
i. The Chief Justice must be a judge in good standing, either state or federal
ii. One must be a prosecutor with five years experience
iii. One must be a criminal defense attorney with five years experience
iv. One must be a Medical Doctor/Doctor of Osteopathy and five years experience
v. One must have a life science PhD with five years experience
vi. One must have a chemistry PhD or subsection thereof with five years experience
vii. One must have Forensic Psychiatry/Psychology PhD with five years experience
viii. One must have ten years of experience doing either cybersecurity, computer forensics, IT specialist
ix. Two must be a forensic specialist in DNA analysis with ten years experience
x. One must be a research scientist with a PhD in pharmaceutical sciences with five years experience.

B. Under this Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs, the creation of the sub-court of Forensic Appeals comprising nine justices is granted as a process to appeal the Bureau of Forensic Tribunals under Section V., sub-section C. It has the power to overturn evidence for court usage due to the inefficiency and inadequacy of the Bureau of Forensic Tribunals. Also, it is a maximum of two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive with the term length of four years.
a. The Chief Justice must be a judge either state or federal, appointed by Congress of the United States b. Three must be forensic scientists with expertise in one field from following: chemistry, life science, or computer forensics with a Masters Degree and five years experience
i. One prosecutor with five years experience
ii. One defense attorney with five years experience
iii. One psychology/psychiatry with five years experience and PhD
iv. One must be a registered and licensed Medical Doctor/ Doctor of Osteopathy
v. One must have a background in pharmaceutical sciences with a Masters Degree and five years experience.

C. Under this Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs, it is hereby created the lowest court known as the Bureau of Forensic Tribunals, “The Bureau” as will be referenced onward, consisting of seven judges to determine the efficacy and efficiency of the licensed forensic scientists and laboratories in relation to court cases using forensic science as evidence to convict.
a. The Bureau is solely created to check forensic scientists and laboratories for their results and ethics. Plus, admissibility of evidence and expert testimony.
b. The Bureau has the right to cross-reference the defense and prosecutorial expert witnesses and review the experiments and results
c. The Bureau has the right to make each expert witness complete a viva vôce or expert testimony before in court to determine validity of the expert witness
d. The Bureau is in a minimum of one per state with no more than seven that shall be developed and implemented by the state legislature of each state, the Committee of Forensic Legislation, and the United States Congress.
e. The creation of seven judges will be chosen as follows:
i. A Chief Justice must be a judge in that respective state appointed by the governor for a term of four years not to exceed eight years or two terms on the bench consecutive or nonconsecutive
ii. The legislature of the state must select two practicing attorneys with a term of four years not to exceed eight years or two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive
iii. The governor shall appoint a medical examiner for a term of four years not to exceed eight years or two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive
iv. The governor shall take a recommendation from the American Academy of Forensic Science as well as professors for each state, plus conduct interviews for a clinical/forensic psychologist, biologist with DNA specialty and Chemistry
1. Biology with DNA specialty and chemistry is a minimum of five years experience and a Masters Degree in that field or subfield
2. Clinical/Forensic Psychologist PhD and licensed by the state with five years experience.

V. Section V. The Committee of Forensic Legislation

A. The Committee of Forensic Legislation is hereby created with a total of three subcommittees to ensure that forensic legislation is up to date and holds a high standard. It also passes forensic law which is headed by the state senators, the governor and state attorney general. The sub-committees continue as follows:
a. The Sub-Committee of Congress is hereby created as the governing body of Forensic Legislation. It will consist of independent scientists and lawyers that answer to the state senators, governor and state attorney general. This sub-committee will have a total of ten scientists from various backgrounds, ten lawyers from general to various specialties, and one Chief Congress Justice whether a state licensed judge or independent scientist (PhD) appointed in collaboration by the two senators, governor and state attorney general.
i. One of each meeting the criteria of a Bachelors of Science Degree with considerable experience of ten years, a Masters Degree in a science discipline with five years experience, a practicing attorney with three years experience, and a PhD in a scientific discipline with three years experience for Chief Congress Justice or a state licensed justice.
ii. This is a period of four years not to exceed eight years or two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive

b. The Sub-Committee of Federal and State Forensic Evidence Codes is hereby created as the legal council divided into two categories: federal and state.
i. One from an American Bar Association (ABA) accredited law school to be federal and one from an ABA or State accredited for state.
1. Must have three years of experience
ii. It is comprised of twenty lawyers with one Chief Justice appointed by the state senators, governor and state attorney general for a maximum of eight years or two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive

c. The Sub-Committee of Forensic Ethical Codes is hereby created as the purely scientific community consisting of only social scientists and life/hard scientists to ensure the ethicality of practices to help the other subcommittees to create and enforce forensic law.
i. Ten from life/hard science and ten from social scientists
ii. Masters Degree with ten years experience
iii. Continuous, not appointment with the exception of the Chief Justice who is a PhD holder and ten years experience.
1. The Chief Justice is appointed in collaboration with the state senators, the governor and the state attorney general for a period of no more than eight years consecutive or nonconsecutive, or two terms of four years each.

VI. Section VI. Lobbying

Under the Department, there is no lobbying allowed of any kind.

VII. Section VII. Donations and Fundraising

A. All persons have the right to donate to The Department. No foreign governments may donate or fundraise of any kind.
B. Fundraising is in accordance with The Department and present during all sponsored fundraisers.
C. According to the United States federal budget for, only 0.39% goes to general science, space and technology in which under this area is only $10,204,900,876 or 36.36% of 0.39% of the national budget.
D. Also, according to the United States federal budget for 2020, 0.89% goes towards the Administration of Justice which is only $64,172,995,165. This is broken down into four subdivisions with the last titled, “Criminal Justice Assistance.” This subdivision is made up of only 5.49% of 0.89% of the federal budget.
E. Under this funding, it would be wise to ask for a minimum of two billion dollars for each branch for a total of six billion dollars.
F. In summation for funding, we are asking the United States federal government to fund the development and project for a duration of eight years. Then, after the successful/unsuccessful Department, the United States government can disband. The Department or propose changes to better fit the needs of the United States Justice System.

Example of Model Policy: A Breakdown of the United Kingdom The Model Policy of The Ministry of Forensic Science for the United Kingdom

An Act to Ensure the Limitations, Objectivity, and Reliability of Forensic Evidence and Science
I. Section I. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to enhance the limitations, objectivity, reliability and interdisciplinary sciences of forensic analysis and testimony in order to ensure a fair, speedy, and accurate criminal justice system that convicts the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and protects the innocent individuals from miscarriages of justice through innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
II. Section II. Ministry of Forensic Science
A. It is hereby created The Ministry of Forensic Science.
“The Ministry”, as it will be called, shall be composed of the following branches:
a. The executive branch;
b. The judicial branch; and
c. The legislative branch.

B. The executive branch will be comprised of one committee and four sub-committees:
a. Committee of Forensic Affairs
i. Sub-Committee of Mixed Parliamentary Oversight
ii. Sub-Committee of Professional Affairs
iii. Sub-Committee of Forensic Investigations
iv. Sub-Committee of Licensure

C. The judicial branch will comprise one committee, two sub-committees and one bureau.
a. Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs
i. Sub-Committee of the Supreme Court of Forensic Affairs
ii. Sub-Committee of Forensic Appeals
iii. The Bureau of Forensic Tribunals

D. The legislative branch will be comprised of one committee and three sub-committees
a. Committee of Forensic Legislation
i. Sub-Committee of Parliament
ii. Sub-Committee of Forensic Evidence Codes
iii. Sub-Committee of Ethical Codes

III. Section III. The Committee of Forensic Affairs

A. The creation of the Committee of Forensic Affairs will be comprised of eleven members chosen as follows:
a. The Parliament of the United Kingdom will appoint these individuals given by recommendations from the different Law Societies, Chartered Society of Forensic Science, United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office, Serious Organized Crime Agency, and Ministry of Justice Statistics for one term of 4 years with a maximum of two terms consecutively or non-consecutively.
i. Three must have a background in forensic investigations
ii. Three must have a background in parliamentary oversight
iii. Three must have a background in professional affairs
iv. Two must have a background in intellectual property.

E. Under this executive branch, there is hereby the four sub-committees under the Committee of Forensic Affairs and accounted as follows:
a. Sub-Committee of Forensic Investigations
i. Under this sub-committee, it is hereby created to investigate negligence, malfeasance, and wrongdoing.
1. Continuous and not appointment
2. Minimum of five years employment in investigations
3. Masters Degree in any field
4. No prior drug use within last three years
5. No prior convictions

b. Sub-Committee of Mixed Parliamentary Oversight
i. Under this sub-committee, it is hereby created to allow cooperation between each parliament from each respective country and this sub-committee.
ii. This sub-committee serves as intelligence and any coercion from parliament.
1. Continuous, not appointment
2. Minimum ten years working in a governmental agency in a supervisory role
3. Masters Degree in any field
4. No prior drug use for last three year
5. No prior convictions

c. Sub-Committee of Professional Affairs
i. Under this sub-committee, it is hereby created to upkeep and protect The Ministry by investigating unlawful acts of prejudice, racism, discrimination of any kind, and disputes amongst members from any areas of the Ministry.
1. Continuous, not appointment
2. Minimum five years in a supervisory role within
governmental agency or ten years in a non-governmental agency 3. Master’s Degree in any field
4. No prior drug use within last three years
5. No convictions

d. Sub-Committee of Licensure
i. Under this sub-committee, it is hereby created to accredit, disqualify, audit, and charge licensing fees to individuals and laboratories within the United Kingdom.
1. Continuous, not appointment
2. Minimum ten years doing licensing affairs, conducting audits, administrative duties and payroll within a governmental or nongovernmental agency
3. Bachelor’s Degree in any field
4. No prior drug usage within last three years
5. No convictions

IV. Section IV. The Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs

A. The creation of the Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs will comprise the Supreme Court of Forensic Affairs’ eleven members appointed for a minimum of eight years with the option of reappointment by Parliament of the United Kingdom for a maximum of two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive.

a. The Parliament of the United Kingdom will appoint these eleven members from the different Legal Societies in each country, Chartered Society of Forensic Science, National Cyber Security Centre, the British Psychological Society, and the Royal Society Biology, Chemistry, and Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
i. The Chief Justice must be a judge in good standing ii. One must be a Crown Prosecutor with five years experience
iii. One must be a Criminal Defense Solicitor/Barrister with five years experience
iv. One must be a Medical Doctor and five years experience
v. One must have a life science PhD with five years experience
vi. One must have a chemistry PhD or subsection thereof with five years experience
vii. One must have Forensic Psychiatry/Psychology PhD with five years experience
viii. One must have ten years of experience doing either cybersecurity, computer forensics, IT specialist
ix. Two must be a forensic specialist in DNA analysis with ten years experience
x. One must be a research scientist with a PhD in pharmaceutical sciences with five years experience.

B. Under this Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs, the creation of the sub-court of Forensic Appeals comprising nine justices is granted as a process to appeal the Bureau of Forensic Tribunals under Section V., sub-section C. It has the power to overturn evidence for court usage due to the inefficiency and inadequacy of the Bureau of Forensic Tribunals. Also, it is a maximum of two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive with the term length of four years.
a. The Chief Justice must be a judge, appointed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
b. Three must be forensic scientists with expertise in one field from following: chemistry, life science, or computer forensics and a Masters Degree with five years experience i. One Crown Prosecutor with five years experience
ii. One Criminal Defence Solicitor/Barrister with five years experience
iii. One psychology/psychiatry with five years experience with minimum of PhD
iv. One must be a registered and licensed Medical Doctor
v. One must have a background in pharmaceutical sciences with a Masters Degree and five years experience.

C. Under this Committee of Forensic Judicial Affairs, it is hereby created the lowest court known as the Bureau of Forensic Tribunals, known as “The Bureau”, consisting of seven judges to determine the efficacy and efficiency of the licensed forensic scientists and laboratories in relation to court cases using forensic science as evidence to convict.
a. The Bureau is solely created to check forensic scientists and laboratories for their results and ethics. Plus, admissibility of evidence and expert testimony.
b. The Bureau has the right to cross-reference the defense and prosecutorial expert witnesses and review the experiments and results.
c. The Bureau has the right to make each expert witness complete a viva vôce or expert testimony before in court to determine validity of the expert witness
d. The Bureau must have a minimum of one per borough with no more than three that shall be developed and implemented by each Parliament of each country, the Committee of Forensic Legislation, and the collective Parliament.
e. The creation of seven judges will be chosen as follows:
i. A Chief Justice must be a judge in that respective country appointed by the Prime Minister for a term of four years not to exceed eight years or two terms on the bench consecutive or nonconsecutive
ii. The legislature of the country must select two practicing solicitors/barristers with a term of four years not to exceed eight years or two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive
iii. The Prime Minister shall appoint a medical examiner for a term of four years not to exceed eight years or two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive
iv. The Prime Minister shall take a recommendation from the Chartered Society of Forensic Science as well as professors from each country, plus conduct interviews for a clinical/forensic psychologist, biologist with DNA specialty and Chemistry
1. Biology with DNA specialty and chemistry is a minimum of five years experience and a Masters Degree in that field or subfield
2. Clinical/Forensic Psychologist PhD and licensed by the country with five years experience.

V. Section V. The Committee of Forensic Legislation

A. The Committee of Forensic Legislation is hereby created with a total of three subcommittees to ensure that forensic legislation is up to date and holds a high standard. It also passes forensic law which is headed by the Parliament, the Prime Minister and Ministry of Justice. The sub-committees continue as follows:
a. The Sub-Committee of Parliament is hereby created as the governing body of Forensic Legislation. It will consist of independent scientists and solicitors/barristers that answer to Parliament, Prime Minister and Ministry of Justice. This sub-committee will have a total of ten scientists from various backgrounds, ten solicitors/barristers from general to various specialties, and one Chief Parliamentary Justice whether a licensed judge or independent scientist (PhD) appointed in collaboration by the Parliament, Prime Minister and Ministry of Justice.
i. One of each meeting the criteria of a bachelors of science degree with considerable experience of ten years, a masters degree in a science discipline with five years experience, a practicing solicitor/barrister with three years experience, and a PhD in a scientific discipline with three years experience for Chief Parliamentary Justice or a licensed justice.
ii. This is a period of four years not to exceed eight years or two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive

b. The Sub-Committee of Forensic Evidence Codes is hereby created as the legal council.
i. From an accredited law programme.
1. Three years of experience
ii. It is comprised of twenty lawyers with one Chief Justice appointed by Parliament, Prime Minister and Ministry of Justice for a maximum of eight years or two terms consecutive or nonconsecutive

c. The Sub-Committee of Forensic Ethical Codes is hereby created as the purely scientific community consisting of only social scientists and life/hard scientists to ensure the ethicality of practices to help the other sub-committees to create and enforce forensic law.
i. Ten from life/hard science and ten from social scientists
ii. Masters Degree with ten years experience
iii. Continuous, not appointment with the exception of the Chief Justice who is a PhD holder and ten years experience.
1. The Chief Justice is appointed in collaboration with the Parliament, Prime Minister and Ministry of Justice for a period of no more than eight years consecutive or nonconsecutive, or two terms of four years each.

VI. Section VI. Lobbying

Under The Ministry, there is no lobbying allowed of any kind regardless of the Acts of Parliament.

VII. Section VII. Donations and Fundraising

A. All persons have the right to donate to the Ministry. No foreign governments may donate or fundraise of any kind.
B. Fundraising is in accordance with the Ministry and will be present during all sponsored fundraisers.
C. Under this funding, it would be wise to ask for a minimum of two billion pounds for each branch for a total of six billion pounds. This number is due to cost-effective analysis across all countries united under the United Kingdom excluding commonwealths.
D. In summation for funding, we are asking the United Kingdom to fund the development and project for a duration of eight years. Then, after the successful/unsuccessful Ministry, the United Kingdom can disband The Ministry or propose changes to better fit the needs of the United Kingdom Justice System.

Conclusion

This thesis examined the ways that the criminal justice system, individuals, police forces, and forensic science are illadvised, succumb to corruption, and go to different lengths to accuse the innocent without repercussions. The six case studies from the United States of America, and the six case studies from the United Kingdom (encompassing England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), were used in this research project based on the astounding lack of support for their respective populations. This thesis used the Social Control Theory and the Rational Choice Theory which informed the aforementioned data analysis subsection under Chapter IV - Materials and Methods as well as the Experimental Criminology Methodology in Chapter VII - Recommendations. This thesis argued that without the checks and balances being checked and balanced, there is no justice for the innocent mentioned prior in those twelve (combined) case studies. It argued that a well-informed regulation department or ministry known to the public to safeguard their interests, is not only key to the Social Control Theory, but also the Rational Choice Theory and Experimental Criminology Methodology. This thesis, continuing on, allowed for model policies geared towards both countries to construct and instruct. These case studies demonstrate that there is a gap between not only policy selection and implementation, but also in theory-based literature within the realm of forensic science and criminology. This thesis also demonstrates that further work is necessary to ensure reliability and strength amongst the different systems and individuals that could be accomplished using the model policies presented. These model policies could create the bond needed to encourage stability, trust and reliability, however, the gap between the individuals, criminal justice system, police forces, and forensic scientists would have to be bridged together in order for this to occur.

Further research is required to evaluate these examples of model policies and bridging the gap amongst those involved. The exclusion of the regulation of forensic science and the relation between individuals and the criminal justice system must continue to be examined. It is important to apply micro checks and balances to the macro checks and balances in further research projects to showcase the necessary importance of this type of system to increase proficiency. More case studies out of the thousands in the United States of America and the United Kingdom must be used in further research to explore the gaps in literature and policies surrounding forensic science.

This research contributes to the literature and policies for regulation of forensic science disciplines along with the regulation of different entities surrounding the courts, criminal justice system and police forces to ensure the innocent stay innocent and the guilty are guilty. This area may be studied and has been improved in many ways such as creating the Forensic Regulator in the United Kingdom along with the various Innocence Projects in the United States of America, but the research into the deeper areas that may seem insignificant, are under researched and under-represented in the literature. It is my hope that this research will be a starting point for further study and discussion on the innocence of individuals who were persecuted by the police forces, forensic scientists, corruption within the court systems and the criminal justice system as a whole. I hope that these results from my findings conducting this research are taken and evaluated along with these model policies to further policymaking and increase the research into micro checks and balances being implemented in macro checks and balances.

While there is a divide between the different groups mentioned in this thesis, I believe that utilizing some of these results and policies presented will allow these individuals to find a common ground that may involve narrowing down the research and implementation or eliminating the divide between these groups all together, in order to preserve the criminal justice system and the rights of individual citizens proven innocent.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and thank my supervisor, Dr Wilson, and to thank my Fiance, Jessika Sosa, for always being there for me and supporting my passion in pursuing the unanswered questions surrounding the criminal justice system and fighting for the miscarriages of justice. I would also like to thank my family for their support and acknowledge my late grandfather, Clinton Wilson Kimbrell who helped me pursue my passions as much as they may be.

References

1. World Prison Brief.
2. Spitzer, Stephen, Andrew Scull (1977) Privatization and Capitalist Development: The Case of the Private Police. Social Problems 25(1).
3. Lundman Robert J (1980) Police and Policing: An Introduction. In: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, United States.
4. Contribute to Making Society Safer and Pursue a Justice Studies Career.
5. Platt, Tony (1982) Crime and Punishment in the United States: Immediate and Long-Term Reforms from a Marxist Perspective, Crime and Social Justice 18.
6. Reichel, Philip L (1979) The Misplaced Emphasis on Urbanization in Police Development, Policing and Society 3 no. 1.
7. Walker, Samuel (1996) The Police in America: An Introduction. McGraw-Hill, United States.
8. The Development of a Police Force - Victorian Crime and Punishment from E2BN.
9. Anon, Innocence Initiative. APPEAL.
10. Anon, UK Cases: R v Suzanne Holdsworth (2008) EWCA Crim 971.