Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How to Improve Forensic Science

  • Published:
European Journal of Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Some institutional structures for inquiry produce better approximations to truth than others. The current institutional structure of police forensics gives each lab a monopoly in the analysis of the police evidence it receives. Forensic workers have inadequate incentives to produce reliable analyses of police evidence. Competition would create such incentives. I outline a system of “competitive self regulation” for police forensics.Each jurisdiction would have several competing forensic labs. Evidence would be divided and sent to one, two, or three separate labs.Chance would determine which labs and how many would receive evidence to analyze.Competitive selfregulation improves forensics by creating incentives for error detection and reducing incentives to produce biased analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anez, Bob. 26 August (2004). “Montana High Court Petitioned for Sweeping Crime Lab Inquiry,” an Associated Press story found in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

  • Barkow, Jerome H., Leda Cosmides & John Tooby, edited. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Benson, Bruce L. (1998). To Serve and Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice, New York and London: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, David E. (1996). “Junk Science in the United States and the Commonwealth.” 21: Yale Journal of International Law. 123–182.

  • Blake, Edward T., Pamela Newall, George Sensabaugh, Robert Shaler, Ronald L. Singer & Mark D. Stolorow. (2004). “Peer Review Report Texas v. George Rodriguez.” Available from the author (Koppl) on request.

  • Bowers, Michael C. (2002). “Identification from Bitemarks: Proficiency Testing of Board Certified Odontologists.” in Faigman, David L. et al. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, 2002.

  • Brave, Ralph. (28 July 2004). “DNA To Go: Legislative Audit Reveals Troubling Problems with Maryland State Police's Handling of DNA Database.” Baltimore Citypaper.

  • Bretz, Ronald. (1987). “Scientific Evidence and the Frye Rule: The Case for a Cautious Approach.” Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 4.

  • Browne, M. Neil, Carrie L. Williamson & Linda L. Barkacs. (2002). “The Perspectival Nature of Expert Testimony in the United States, England, Korea & France.” Connecticut Journal of International Law. 18, 55–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Jim. (24 September 2004). “Expert's Resignation Latest Setback for FWPD Crime Lab.” WFAA, downloaded from http://www.wfaa.com 27 September 2004.

  • FBI Director. (2002). “An Audit of Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory-DNA/Serology Section.” December 12–13, 2002.

  • Feigenbaum, Susan & David M. Levy. (1996). “The Technical Obsolescence of Scientific Fraud.” Rationality and Society. 8, 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Richard D. (2003). “Squeezing Daubert Out of the Picture.” 33 Seton Hall Law Review. 33, 1047.

  • Giannelli, Paul C. (1997). “The Abuse of Evidence in Criminal Cases: The Need for Independent Crime Laboratories.” Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law. 4, 439–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillispie, Mark & Lila J. Mills. (2004). “Suspended crime-lab technician lands a job.” The Plain Dealer.

  • Greer, Steven. (1994). “Miscarriages of Criminal Justice Reconsidered.” The Modern Law Review. 57(1), 58–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grieve, David. (1996). “Possession of Truth.” Journal of Forensic Identification. 46(5), 521–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Lissa. (2000/2001). “The Correction of Wrongful Convictions: A Comparative Perspective.” American University International Law Review. 16, 1241–1308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, Terry. (25 January 2004). “Crime Lab Boss Placed on Leave: Mayor Removes Longtime Director amid Allegations he Helped Cover Up Wrongdoing.” The Indianapolis Star, as found on http://bioforensics.com/news/crime_lab_boss.html on 11 October 2004.

  • Illinois, State of. (2002). Report of the Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment, State of Illinois, April 15, 2002.

  • Jonakait, Randolph N. (1991). “Forensic Science: The Need for Regulation.” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. 4, 109–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, Fred. (1998). Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin, Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1998.

  • Kelly, John F. & Phillip Wearne. (1998). Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, Roma. (8 February 2003). “DNA from conviction of teen will be retested: 1999 rape case part of HPD crime lab review.” The Houston Chronicle.

  • Khanna, Roma. (10 September 2003). “Credentials embellished Transcript: Ex-lab chief told jury he had a Ph.D..” The Houston Chronicle.

  • Koppl, Roger & William Butos. (2003). “Science as a Spontaneous Order: An Essay in the Economics of Science.” in Jensen, H. S., Vendeloe, M. & Richter,L. (ed.), The Evolution of Scientific Knowledge, Edward Elgar.

  • Kurzban, Robert, John Tooby & Leda Cosmides. (2001). “Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization.” In Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 98(26), 15387–15392.

  • Lodge, Milton & Charles Taber. (2000). “Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning.” in Lupia, Arthur, Mathew D. McCubbins & Samuel L. Popkin, editors, Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice & the Bounds of Rationality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lucas, Leete & Field. (1985). “An American Proficiency Testing Program.” Forensic Science International. 27.

  • Macfee, Michelle. 15 September 2004). “DNA-Hair Test Results should be Wake-Up Call: Lawyer.” downloaded from http://cnews.canoe.ca on 22 September 2004.

  • McBeth, Jim. (21 September 2004). “Fingerprint row detective cleared by US forensics.” Scotsman.com. Downloaded from http://scotsman.com on 27 September 2004.

  • McCabe, K., D. Houser, L. Ryan, V. Smith & T. Trouard. (2001). “A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange.” In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 98(20), 11832– 11835.

  • McQuade, T.J. & W.N. Butos (2003). “Order-Dependent Knowledge and the Economics of Science” Review of Austrian Economics. 16(2/3), 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuillan, Peter J. (2004). “Forensic Contretemps.” downloaded from http://www.innocenceproject.org/dnanews/index.php on 7 October 2004.

  • McRoberts, Flynn, Steve Mills & Maurice Possley. 17 October 2004). “Forensics Under the Microscope: Unproven Techniques Sway Courts, Erode Justice.” Chicago Tribune.

  • McVicker, Steve & Roma Khanna. (14 March 2003). “D.A. is Asked to Back Call for HPD Lab Probe: Rosenthal Cool to Resolution Seeking FBI Review of Cases.” The Houston Chronicle.

  • Megginson, William L. & Jeffry M. Netter. (2001). “From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization.” Journal of Economic Literature. 39(2), 321–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. (1957). “Science and the Social Order.” in his Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged edition, New York: The Free Press.

  • Miller, Larry S. (1987). “Procedural Bias in Forensic Science Examinations of Human Hair.” Law and Human Behavior. 11, 157–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Steve, Flynn McRoberts & Maurice Possley. (20 October 2004). “When Labs Falter, Defendants Pay: Bias Toward Prosecution Cited in Illinois Cases.” Chicago Tribune.

  • Mills, Steve & Maurice Possley. (14 January 2001). “Report Alleges Crime Lab Fraud Scientist is Accused of Providing False Testimony.” Chicago Tribune.

  • Moenssens, Andre A. (1993). “Novel Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases: Some Words of Caution.” Journal of Crime Law and Criminology. 84, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • News-Leader. (19 August 2004). “Changes Needed at State Crime Lab: How Big? That Should be a Matter for Debate.” News-Leader (of Springfield, Missouri).

  • Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Justice. (1997). The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases, http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/97-04a/index.htm.

  • Peterson, Joseph L., D. Crim & Penelope N. Markham. (1995a). “Crime Lab Proficiency Testing Results, 1978–1991, I: Identification and Classification of Physical Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences. 40(6), 994– 1008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Joseph L., D. Crim & Penelope N. Markham. (1995b). “Crime Lab Proficiency Testing Results, 1978-1991, II: Resolving Questions of Common Origin.” Journal of Forensic Sciences. 40(6), 1009–1029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearsall, Anthony. (1989). “DNA Printing: The Unexamined ‘Witness’ in Criminal Trials.” California Law Review. 77, 665–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Michael. (1962). “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory.” Minerva. 1, 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puit, Glenn. (19 April 2002). “Police Forensics: DNA Mix-Up Prompts Audit at Lab.” Las Vegas Review-Journal.

  • Raziq, David & Anna Werner. (2004). “DNA Testing: Study Calls into Question Long-Trusted Lab Results.” The IRE Journal. 27(1), 13–14, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risinger, Michael, Michael J. Saks, William C. Thompson & Robert Rosenthal. (2002). “The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion.” California Law Review. 90, 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, Michael J. (2003). “Reliability Standards–Too High, Too Low, or Just Right?: The Legal and Scientific Evaluation of Forensic Science (Especially Fingerprint Expert Testimony).” 33 Seton Hall Law Review. 49, 1167–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, Michael J. (1998). “Merlin and Solomon: Lessons from the Law's Formative Encounters with Forensic Identification Science.” 49 Hastings Law Journal. 49, 1069–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, Michael J. et al. (2001). “Model Prevention and Remedy of Erroneous Convictions Act.” Arizona State Law Journal. 33, 665–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzman, Jonathon. (24 January 2004). “Man Freed in 1997 Shooting of Officer.” The Boston Globe.

  • Schulhofer, Stephen J. & David D. Friedman. (1993). “Rethinking Indigent Defense: Promoting Effective Representation through Consumer Sovereignty and Freedom of Choice for All Criminals.” American Criminal Law Review. 31, 71–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, Connie. (08 June 2004). “City to pay $1.6 million for man's prison time.” The Plain Dealer.

  • Stuntz, William J. (1997). “The Uneasy Relationship Between Criminal Procedure and Criminal Justice.” Yale Law Journal. 107, 1–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teichroeb, Ruth. (13 March 2004). “They Sit in Prison—But Crime Lab Tests are Flawed.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

  • Teichroeb, Ruth. (22 July 2004). “Rare Look Inside State Crime Labs Reveals Recurring DNA Test Problems.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

  • Thompson, William C. (1995). “Subjective Interpretation, Laboratory Error and the Value of Forensic DNA Evidence: Three Case Studies.” 96 Genetica. 96, 153.

  • Thompson, William C. (1997). “Accepting Lower Standards: The National Research Council's Second Report on Forensic DNA Evidence.” Jurimetrics. 37, 405–?.

  • Thomson, M. A. (1974). “Bias and Quality Control in Forensic Science: A Cause for Concern.” Journal of Forensic Sciences. 19, 504–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, Allen. 17 August 2004). “Crime Lab Official Stole Drugs, Charges Say: The County Dismissed or Declined 284 Cases Because of the Charges.” News-Leader. (of Springfield, Missouri).

  • Washington, Michelle. 1 October 2004). “Governor asks Forensics Lab to Test Random DNA Samples.” The Virginian-Pilot.

  • Williamson, Oliver. (1976). “Franchise Bidding for Natural Monopolies—in General and with Respect to CATV.” Bell Journal of Economics. 7(1), 73–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yardley, Jim. (2 May 2001). “Oklahoma Inquiry Focuses on Scientist Used by Prosecutors.” New York Times.

  • Young, Richard & Andrew Sanders. (1994). “The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice: A Confidnence Trick?” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 14(3), 435–448.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economics and Finance, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ, 07940, USA

    Roger Koppl (Professor)

Authors
  1. Roger Koppl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger Koppl.

Additional information

JEL Classification: K14, K42, H11

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koppl, R. How to Improve Forensic Science. Eur J Law Econ 20, 255–286 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-005-4196-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-005-4196-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation