In a 100 words each respond to he following posts and use 1 reference to each of them.

Yves Koffi

Forensic science is organized into a number of disciplines, all of which require specific expertise in one or more areas of the natural sciences. As scientific studies become more sophisticated and developed, the role of the medical examiner continues to play a more important role in crime scene investigations. And because of the complexity of forensics and the many fields of study in this field, the need to establish and maintain professional standards has never been greater. It is therefore not surprising that professional certification in forensic medicine is common and that advancement in the profession often depends on it (“Forensic Certification | Forensic Science Certification”, 2019). Forensic science is unique by its multidisciplinary approach (collaboration with radiologists, pathologists, anthropologists, odonatologists, biologists, psychiatrists etc.), but also by the diversity of possible modes of exercise (hospitals, institutions, expert medicine, mixed activity) . In all cases, the forensic doctor cooperates closely with the legal world (police, magistrates, judicial experts).

Reference:

Forensic Certification | Forensic Science Certification. (2019). Retrieved 17 December 2019, from https://www.crimesceneinvestigatoredu.org/forensic-certification/

Morgan Putnam

The frontline video “The Real CSI” takes a look into the ACFEI and their certification process. After watching this PBS Frontline video and corresponding article entitled “Shake-Up Inside Forensic Credentialing Organization (Links to an external site.)”, I was inclined to believe that PBS was a credible and reliable party. However, after reading the official statement from ACFEI in response to the claims made in the prementioned video and article, “ACFEI’S official statement in response to Frontline’s film and ProPublica’s article (Links to an external site.)”, ACFEI made me question PBS’s validity. However, my position is to agree with the creditability of PBS, since the information presented highlights the importance of thoroughness and certifications.

The pros of my position in supporting PBS is that it is a highly publicized, mass produced media source, meaning that the information produced in this piece will be widely available to the public. Maybe, that will make more people (judges, jurors) aware of certifications/experience (and what they truly mean) and the effect that they can have on cases. It is important that qualified individuals be witnesses in court cases, in order to ensure that proper procedures are followed and that everyone gets the same treatment. Also, if individuals who are not properly certified/trained are handling, retrieving, etc, evidence, then that evidence was not properly obtained through regulated procedures and therefore should not be admissible in court. Additionally, it may force companies like these (giving away false or non-credible certifications) to either rework their process or stop altogether; in turn, allowing for a more streamlined and trustworthy certification process.

The cons of my position is that since PBS is a trusted highly publicized news source, it uses that to its advantage, probably being biased and has omitted certain information. However, from what I have seen from ACFEI’s official statement, the information that has been omitted does not make them anymore credible, as being an organization giving out certificates with the possibility of impacting court decisions (knowingly, may I add, as stated by Mr. O’Block) they should clearly state their intended use somewhere (such as for educational purposes only). Also, another con is it may cause companies who are properly certifying individuals or abiding by the rules to unfortunately be labeled as corrupt or non-credible based on other companies actions. Additionally, with more people on alert, more expert witnesses might be subject to increase questioning of their credentials/expertise by others (which may be a good thing).

From the events that have transpired from the ACFEI ‘s certification problem, it is clear there is an issue in the forensics process of how to not only properly certify an individual, but how to identify a forensics expert as well. It was difficult for me to determine who I believed was credible in this instance, since PBS is a widely publicized news organization and ACFEI “specializes” in forensics, however, the allegations against the company- from the 99% success rate to the Judge in the video stating that sometimes they are so busy with cases they look solely to the certifications to assess an expertise level- led me to believe that PBS was more credible, and that ACFEI should be held responsible. Both sources have their own pros and cons in regard to their credibility.

REFERENCES

Bartos, L. (2014, April 11). Shake-Up Inside Forensic Credentialing Organization. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/real-csi/shake-up-inside-forensic-credentialing-organization/ (Links to an external site.)

Easttom, Chuck. “Incident and Intrusion Response.” System Forensics, Investigation, and Response, 3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2019, pp. 273–284.

The Real CSI. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-the-real-csi/ (Links to an external site.)

Roberts, J. (n.d.). ACFEI’S official statement in response to Frontline’s film and ProPublica’s article. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/ACFEI.ProPublicaOfficialStmt.pdf