Guest editorial

Citation

Porter, G. (2015), "Guest editorial", Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-10-2015-0049

Guest editorial

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Volume 1, Issue 4.

Glenn Porter

Glenn Porter is Associate Professor in Photomedia at the James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.

Welcome to this Special Edition of JCRPP on forensic science and intelligence. The forensic science domain possesses a wide variety of science-based disciplines with each division having its own set of nuances and complexities associated with their own form of evidence. This array of complex issues makes it difficult to discuss forensic science from a purely holistic perspective, however the overarching aim of this discipline is to assist investigators and court decision makers in understanding facts through scientifically examined evidence. A broader public purview has also occurred within forensic science through popular culture television shows such as CSI and a host of Australian and overseas universities have established courses that specialised in forensic science as a core area of study (Weaver et al., 2012).

The practice, policies and reliability of forensic evidence has come under a significant degree of scrutiny over the last decade and particularly after the National Academy of Sciences (2009) released its report on the effectiveness of forensic evidence and practice. The National Academy of Science report was critical of several long-standing practices, which sent some degree of trepidation throughout the industry. These criticisms have led to new concepts to forensic science being examined, researched and applied into policy and practice. Contextual bias is an example of a new and challenging concept affecting how forensic science is applied in examinations, investigations and within the content of evidence presented in courts (Edmond et al., 2015).

The consequences for inaccurate or erroneous forensic science evidence are certainly ominous. Practitioners have a considerable ethical responsibility to the community to ensure that rigorous forensic evidence is provided to investigators and the criminal justice system (Porter and Kennedy, 2012). It is important that the actors within the forensic science domain maintain a principle-led focus with a strong ethical framework. Forensic science concepts, practitioners, processes and policy require constant reassessment as technology advances and knowledge of examination methods evolve through research. Forensic science is an applied science and it is critical that a nexus between practice and research coexists.

This nexus is necessary for forensic science to develop and maintain a high degree of legitimacy. The relationship between researcher and practitioner is essential when valued real-world outcomes are a priority. There are significant benefits when a practice-led research and research-led practice paradigm is established. Researchers are informed by the practice and can solve real-world problems, while the practitioners can be informed by the research and their practices may evolve with confidence.

The type of research supporting forensic science is also an important consideration. Julian and Kelty confirm (in their paper in this issue) that forensic science as an applied science and suggests it cannot be an idealised version of pure science. While forensic science research has previously been dominate within the pure science spectrum, and pure science remains the foundational concepts supporting many practices, we have since realised that the concepts of “evidence” and its effectiveness within the criminal justice system, requires a wider perspective and incorporate other disciplines such as; social science, law, criminology, sociology, psychology, visual culture and others. Forensic science is not only multidisciplinary by practice but intersects across several intellectual agencies. Quality forensic science research is emerging from not only partnerships between practitioners and researchers, but also the research teams themselves are from different disciplines and perspectives. This makes forensic science a vibrant and interesting research area to explore.

This JCRPP Special Edition contains five papers. The authors stem from a range of backgrounds including academics, researchers and forensic practitioners. The topics vary from examining the risk factors associated with forensic practice from the scene to the court, environmental forensics, biometric identification and forensic imaging.

Julian and Kelty’s research paper identify and discuss six key risk factors associated with forensic science evidence from the collection at the crime scene to presentation of evidence in court. Their findings are based on a five-year study into the effectiveness of forensic science in Australia. Porter and Ebeyan’s research paper introduces a novel method of forensic examination using an assessment criteria method for the examination of images. Their research stems from practical casework involving insurance fraud where investigators are required to determine whether the supplied images are originals or second-generation copies.

Spikmans’ paper presents a commentary paper on the complexities of evidence within environmental forensics. Despite the misconception that pollution evidence is relatively easy to locate, environmental forensics crime scenes are often analogous with finding a needle in a haystack. The detection of the source of pollutants and the natural contamination, dilution or degradation of evidence samples requires careful consideration during the forensic investigation, collection and analysis. Denny’s paper examines, from a casework perspective, difficulties encountered when forensically comparing clothing from CCTV images. Her paper provides an insight into how different recording conditions associated with the spectral distribution of light sources and the spectral sensitive of cameras can produce significantly different results from the same objects. Spiteri et al. research paper examines the variation of passport photographs from different retail sources. The research found that anatomical variation of subjects occur in the resultant photographs and despite having supporting guidelines and standards associated with this practice. The paper also dispels the myth that the mechanical notion of passport photographs does not naturally result in a homogeneous craniofacial anatomy representation from the same subject.

I hope you enjoy the papers presented in this JCRPP Special Edition. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the editors, publishers and all contributors to this special forensic science and intelligence edition of the Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice.

References

Edmond, G., Tangen, J.M., Searston, R.A. and Dror, I.E. (2015), “Contexual; bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: the corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals”, Law, Probability and Risk, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-25

National Academy of Sciences (2009), Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Porter, G. and Kennedy, M. (2012), “Photographic truth & evidence”, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 183-92

Weaver, R., Salamonson, Y., Koch, J. and Porter, G. (2012), “The CSI effect at university: forensic science students’ television viewing and perceptions of ethical issues”, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 381-91