A Google search of the term battlefield forensics results in the following explanation in a U.S. Department of Defense on-line document http://www.defensesolutions.gov/about_BF.html:

“The functional lines between traditional warfighting and activities such as law enforcement, physical security, and cyber crime have blurred.

DoD defines forensics simply: “The application of multi-disciplinary scientific processes to establish facts.” DoD is applying criminal forensic capabilities and technologies typically used in law enforcement to meet needs in national security and counter-terrorism.

Forensic science disciplines, research, techniques, and tools are extremely useful in identifying enemies, insurgents, and terrorists and scientifically linking them to other people, places, things, organizations, and events.

The U.S. military uses forensic sciences such as latent prints, DNA, firearms and toolmarks, forensic document examination, digital evidence discovery, and forensic pathology and odontology in pursuit of terrorists and their accomplices.

Forensic science traditionally applies scientific knowledge and methodology to legal problems and criminal investigations. Military operations in the Global War on Terrorism demand new capabilities from forensic science, ones that can be used on the battlefield, in exigent circumstances, by non-professionals.”

 As the military develops forensic databases for use in conflict areas, one question that naturally arises is how these data will be shared in a civilian setting. With porous borders, it is easy for hostile individuals to illegally enter other countries. If local police stop them and fingerprint checks are run — or perhaps DNA checks in more serious crimes — how might they be identified as persons of interest from hostile areas?

 This is a problem which places civil liberties in conflict with homeland security concern. How might such a conundrum be addressed?

PRIZE DRAWING TERMS & CONDITIONS

The winner will have the option of winning ONE of the following great prizes:

• Forensic Entomology: The Utility of Arthropods in Legal Investigations, Second Edition
• Forensic Science Policy & Management – free one year online journal subscription
• Forensic Science: The Basics, Second Edition
• Handbook of Forensic Toxicology for Medical Examiners
• Interpol’s Forensic Science Review
• Practical Crime Scene Analysis and Reconstruction
• Scientific Method: Applications in Failure Investigation and Forensic Science

Click on the titles above to view more detailed information.

By entering this prize drawing the entrant will be deemed to have read and understood these rules and instructions and to be bound by them.

No purchase is necessary for this competition.

Any employee of the publisher or any other person who is directly connected with this competition or their immediate family will be ineligible to enter. Persons under the age of 18 may only enter with the written consent of a parent or legal guardian.

ONE winner will be randomly chosen on September 30^st 2010 to receive either ONE forensic science book from the list above or ONE year online journal subscription to Forensic Science Policy & Management. The winner will be contacted by email within two weeks. If they do not respond to that email within 30 days, another winner will be randomly selected.

Any entry which is incomplete, illegible, late, or otherwise does not comply with the rules may be deemed invalid in the sole discretion of Taylor & Francis Plc. The judge’s decision is final. The prize is not transferable and must be accepted as offered. There is no cash alternative to the competition prize.

Taylor & Francis, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA, 19106

 (Full citation: Cole, S.A., Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: the new epistemology of forensic identification. Law, Probability and Risk, 2009. 8(3): p. 233-255.)

 Is Cole right? Is the concept of “uniqueness” unnecessary to a successful application of forensic sciences (for example, DNA analysis)?

 Note that Paul L. Kirk, in his book Crime Investigation, 1970, states, “On the witness stand, the criminalist must be willing to admit that absolute identity is impossible to establish. . . . The inept or biased witness may readily testify to an identity, or to a type of identity, that does not actually exist. This can come about because of his confusion as to the nature of identity, his inability to evaluate the results of his observations, or because his general technical deficiencies preclude meaningful results.” (page 10)

Some point to this case as another example of the problems associated with forensic science and an additional example of issues like those noted in the National Academy of Science report.

What is your opinion of this case and how does it inform the current debate in forensic science? Fire science is one of those areas of expertise typically found outside of public forensic labs. Like traffic investigation and blood stain pattern interpretation, these disciplines may be used with limited oversight. How might they be improved?

 What is your view of the practice?

The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of claims that faulty forensic science is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. This sentiment has been reported at length by major news outlets across the United States. It has also been a matter of great concern to a group of activists in what is known as the innocence network and other individuals having varying degrees of interest in the formulation of public policies related to forensic science.

To meet the objectives of this study, its authors reviewed past research and public information pertaining to the first 200 DNA exonerations that occurred between 1989 and 2007. The frequencies of systemic failures extracted from case profiles published by the Innocence Project were tabulated and analyzed with due consideration given to media reports that summarized individual cases. Authoritative texts were also consulted to help put the issue of wrongful convictions in proper context.

As a result of this study, forensic science malpractice, whether intentionally or accidentally committed, was shown to be a comparatively small risk to the criminal justice system—accounting statistically for less than 11 percent of all cases studied. As the authors will explain, the true percentage is likely much lower. But just as compelling were the number of wrongful convictions (18 percent) where forensic evidence reportedly favored the defendant.

In this regard, the available data strongly indicate that complaints about the overall quality of forensic science in American jurisprudence are mainly rhetorical in nature and are not based on valid statistical analyses of the role of forensic science in overturned convictions. While the profession of forensic science, like all critical professions, has a responsibility to continuously improve itself, its portrayal in the media as generally having an adverse impact on our criminal justice system is an injustice.

Click here to visit the article page on journal homepage (full article only available to subscribers).