Forensic science has evolved to become a critical field for tackling legal issues in many jurisdictions. The process is pursued in accordance with established principles of admissible information or evidence. The current leader of the International Association of Identification (IAI) appears to be the best person for formulating a committee to write a national report on this country’s state of forensic science. This professional has a proper understanding of this area and is aware of professionals who can deliver the most appropriate information.
Given the opportunity to select new committee members, I would begin by considering different stakeholders who are impacted by the issue of forensic science. The first option will be that of an attorney representing the other professionals in the same field. The second one is that of experts in this field, including laboratory specialists and analysts. These individuals will offer evidence-based ideas and insights for understanding the nature of this issue and present a reliable report on this country’s state of forensic science. The third group is that of experts in the criminal justice system.
These representatives will be in a position to offer timely ideas and issues revolving around the status and development of forensic science in the United States. The fourth one is that of community members or citizens with diverse backgrounds. This means several people should be selected to be part of the committee since they can offer insights and ideas regarding the perception of forensic science and how it can be transformed. Finally, forensic scientists will be included since they have a proper understanding of this field, its current developments, existing gaps, and emerging opportunities for delivering positive results (Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council, 2019).
This mix or group of stakeholders will support the formulation of a national committee to write a report on the state of forensic science. The final result is that a powerful document will be developed and presented to the relevant department and eventually promote policy formulation and implementation.
The authors of the presented report meet my outlined criteria. Firstly, these are experts in different fields, including advanced technology, forensic science, criminal justice, and legal matters. Secondly, they understand the milestones, gaps, and opportunities surrounding the issue of forensic science in the United States. They can make evidence-based recommendations and present appropriate guidelines (Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council, 2019). Such issues can be implemented to transform the effectiveness of every legal process. Thirdly, their inclusion resonates with the role of different stakeholders in policy formulation and implementation.
The second recommendation outlined in the NAS report is establishing a standardized model for testifying and reporting. According to the IAI, such terminology will reduce confusion whenever interpreting results or examination findings. Such formats will become powerful guidelines for those in the legal profession (Hansen, 2013). Personally, I feel that the IAI is falling in line with the recommendations presented in the NAS report. This is true since it supports the suggestions and describes how they will transform the nature of forensic science practice (Executive Office of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016).
The concerns outlined by the IAI are valid since they revolve around the obstacles that undermine the effectiveness of forensic science. The implementation of the presented recommendations will, therefore, improve the practice and meet the demands of all stakeholders throughout the judicial process.
References
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. (2019). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice.
Executive Office of the President President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2016). Report to the president: Forensic science in criminal courts: Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Hansen, M. (2013). Crimes in the lab. ABA Journal, 1(1), 46-51.