A critical review of the current state of forensic science knowledge and its integration in legal systems

Forensic science has a significant historical and contemporary relationship with the criminal justice system. It is a relationship between two disciplines whose origins stem from different backgrounds. It is trite that effective communication assist in resolving underlying problems in any given context. However, a lack of communication continues to characterise the intersection between law and science. As recently as 2019, a six-part symposium on the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system again posed the question on how the justice system could ensure the reliability of forensic science evidence presented during trials. As the law demands finality, science is always evolving and can never be considered finite or final. Legal systems do not always adapt to the nature of scientific knowledge, and are not willing to abandon finality when that scientific knowledge shifts. Advocacy plays an important role in the promotion of forensic science, particularly advocacy to the broader scientific community for financial support, much needed research and more testing. However, despite its important function, advocacy should not be conflated with science. The foundation of advocacy is a cause; whereas the foundation of science is fact. The objective of this research was to conduct a qualitative literature review of the field of forensic science; to identify gaps in the knowledge of forensic science and its integration in the criminal justice system. The literature review will provide researchers within the field of forensic science with suggested research topics requiring further examination and research. To achieve its objective, the study critically analysed the historical development of, and evaluated the use of forensic science evidence in legal systems generally, including its role regarding the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence in the courtroom. In conclusion, it was determined that the breadth of forensic scientific knowledge is comprehensive but scattered. The foundational underpinning of the four disciplines, discussed in this dissertation, has been put to the legal test on countless occasions. Some gaps still remain that require further research in order to strengthen the foundation of the disciplines. Human influence will always be present in examinations and interpretations and will lean towards subjective decision making.JurisprudenceD. Phil

Scientific, Technical, and Forensic Evidence

Materials from the conference on Scientific, Technical, and Forensic Evidence held by UK/CLE in February 2002