Forensic science evolved as an attempt to introduce scientific methods into criminal justice. From the 18th century onward, advancements in chemistry, biology, and physics paved the way for forensic science (Gaensslen & Larsen, 2019). Likewise, the routine use of autopsy and forensic pathology helped improve the ability to understand the causes of death (Gaensslen & Larsen, 2019). Forensic science steadily evolved, in conjunctions with advancements in scientific instruments and the methods used for data collection and analysis. DNA evidence and analysis has made a huge impact on forensic science. Current concerns in forensic science include the need for increased reliability and validity of forensic science methods, as well as public perceptions of forensic science. Because perceptions of forensic science could have a direct impact on juror decisions, distinguishing real from junk science becomes one of the most important issues in criminal justice.
Scientific Methods in Forensic Science

Forensic scientific methods are varied and complex,“ranging from DNA analysis to chemical composition to pattern recognition,” (Bell, Sah, Albright, et al., 2018, p. 4541). Big data has also contributed tremendously to the collation and methods used in forensic analysis. Interestingly, the methods that had been used in forensic science until relatively recently had yet to be vetted by the scientific community. Instead, the standards of validity and reliability were established by members of the legal and criminal justice systems (Bell, Sah, Albright, et al., 2018). Ongoing investigations critiquing the methods used in forensic science led to the dismantling of the National Commission for Forensic Science (NCFS), but unfortunately no replacement system was established to setting standards for reliability and validity (Bell, Sah, Albright, et al., 2018). Kaplan & Puracal (2018) advocate for a “collaborative approach” to increase validity and reliability (p. 1).

Peer Review Process

Peer review has long been considered a gold standard of establishing scientific credibility, authenticity, and legitimacy. Yet as Ballantyne, Edmond & Found (2017) found, after an assessment of peer review processes in forensic science, “its actual value in most forensic science settings has yet to be determined,” (p. 66). Peer review processes are only as valid and reliable as their structure and design; there are different types...…but lack the competencies required to effectively evaluate criteria for establishing instrument and method reliability and validity. The use of junk science in forensics can, and most likely has, led to miscarriages of justice. Even the peer-reviewed process has proven flawed given the lack of substantial definitions for what constitutes a professional peer capable of evaluating the reliability and validity of forensic data (Ballantyne, Edmond & Found, 2017). The CSI effect might effect the ways criminal justice professionals who are not members of the scientific community perceive the reliability and validity of forensic science methods, but the proliferation of junk science is more likely due to global factors related to scientific literacy (Shelton, 2008).

Conclusions

The future of forensic science depends on the establishment of stricter standards and a commitment to scientific literacy within the criminal justice community. Whether or not the CSI effect is real, forensic science needs to clean up its own act by interjecting the means by which to increase media and scientific literacy. The use of forensic science should be strictly constrained by a commitment to justice.…