Another threat to the integrity of forensic evidence is the presence of bias. Because forensic laboratories are government organizations, they are in constant contact with police and prosecutors, and there is sometimes immense pressure on them to produce results that lead to conviction, regardless of the actual truth. Although the purpose of forensic science was to help the legal apparatus find the truth with scientific support, in reality it has become a science that only helps law enforcement. In addition, forensic pathologists who are summoned by a party to a court case as expert witnesses tend to support that side in the same way as a lawyer rather than being objective in their judgment. Shapiro (2016) presented a case that vividly illustrates the dilemma of multiple relationships. The court ordered the psychologist in question to treat a child victim of sexual abuse and to submit regular reports on the same case. She has always considered her role as a therapist, not as a forensic scientist. Later, the alleged perpetrator filed a complaint for the psychologist`s incompetence for not following ethical guidelines. The psychologist explained that her role is not medico-legal, but therapeutic, and for this reason, she does not have to follow the guidelines.
However, he had not clarified this issue prior to the filing of the complaint. In other words, at the time she took the child under her supervision, she was not aware that she was only providing therapeutic services and that her reports should not be considered for forensic assessment. While it is rare for a psychologist to use this professional excellence to intentionally hurt someone, sometimes unintentional harm is inflicted. Forensic psychologists must consider long-term harm before conducting an assessment. Such an example of accidental harm is a case where a forensic psychologist must examine the execution of a criminal. If the perpetrator is deemed capable of execution, he will harm a life. In a counter-argument, many will believe that if the perpetrator is not found capable of execution, he also saves a life (Shapiro 2016). One of the topics discussed is the ethnic and racial designations of genetic samples. Medical examiners often try to use the results of DNA research to place ethnic and racial marks on samples found at the crime scene.
However, many authors believe that ethnic and racial differences are cultural rather than biological or genetic. Many have raised questions about the scientific usefulness of racial classifications. It is defined as being in a professional role with one person and simultaneously in another with the same or closely related person, or the promise to enter into a different relationship with a person or closely related person (Shapiro 2016). If the psychologist is required by law, institutional guidelines, or unusual circumstances to perform multiple roles in court proceedings, the psychologist should clarify his or her role expectations and the extent of confidentiality at the outset and as circumstances change (American Psychological Association, 2010). In addition, forensic psychologists are not permitted to assume a professional role if they have another interest that could potentially affect their competence, objectivity, or effectiveness in performing psychological work (American Psychological Association 2010). Siegal (2012) roughly divided ethical dilemmas into six categories. In the courtroom, forensic pathologists face many ethical dilemmas when testifying. Ethical dilemmas associated with interpreting analytical data and presenting testimony in court can include bias on the part of forensic scientists, use of scientific jargon, use of confusing or misleading witness statements, excessive equivocation, and advocacy. Another problem with forensic labs is how results and conclusions are reported. Some laboratories report minimal results without useful or adequate explanation.
In addition, the forensic pathologist who performed the analysis often does not even need to be present in court for testimony. While forensic evidence has great value in identifying various aspects of a crime, the problem remains that due to widespread human involvement in this area, there is always room for misconduct and/or negligence. Every step of this process, from collecting evidence at the crime scene to analyzing the evidence in a forensic laboratory, requires great care and caution. Given the importance of forensic science in protecting our society, it follows that forensic evidence must be handled in the most ethical manner possible. It should be noted that psychologists must progressively work to the best of their abilities based on their education, training, supervised experience, counselling, education or work experience (American Psychological Association, 2010). They are or will become sufficiently familiar with the judicial or administrative rules governing their role. In determining competence, we must consider the relative complexity and nature of the service to be provided, the relevant education and experience, the preparation and study they may have devoted to the issue, and the possibility of counselling in a particular area (American Psychological Association, 2010). It is the ethical duty of forensic psychologists to inform the reference source if there is a known basis in research or practice to answer the question asked. You should avoid distorting the search in any way. Knowledge of legal and professional norms, laws, rules and procedures must not result in a threat or infringement of the rights of the person concerned or a sensitivity and knowledge of individuals (Canadian Psychological Association, 2000). As scientists, researchers and practitioners, all forensic scientists have an inherent responsibility and obligation to the forensic profession to uphold the highest ethical values and standards.
Ethical dilemmas fall into three categories, which include failure to keep up with recent advances and updated knowledge, inappropriate use of performance tests, and continuation of inappropriate educational practices. Finally, for reasons of fairness and justice, the Innocence Project supports judicial review (post-conviction review) in cases where unsound scientific evidence may have contributed to a conviction. Laws addressing this issue have recently been passed by Texas and California. When evidence is mishandled, manipulated or misinterpreted, the outcome of the case changes (Ayres, 1994). The investigation into Simpson`s murder is an example of how improper manipulation of evidence can destroy a case.