Crime Science: Methods of Forensic Detection

Afterword

AFTERWORD In the preceding chapters, we have attempted to portray the various forensic sciences as they typically are carried out today at crime scenes and in laboratories, and we have endeavored to provide perspective by discussing the pioneers and techniques of the past. We have seen how the past century has placed crime detection on a scientific foundation. There is an old saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same, and this is certainly true of the forensic sciences. Although the practitioners of a century ago would scarcely recognize the present-day laboratory with its computerized AFIS system, DNA typing, and gas chromatography , still the basic elements of fingerprinting, bloodstains, and suspected poisons remain. They are among the all-too-constant elements of the criminal domain. Also, according to Richard Saferstein, "Although it is true that over the past two decades, owing to developments in analytical instrumentation, there have been dramatic changes in the tools and techniques available to the forensic analyst, human involvement is still required to interpret and weigh the significance of data emanating from these machines."1 If our forebears would be astonished at the current technology, we can expect future developments to be no less amazing . Yet it is not as easy to see the future, which must be imagined, as to view the past, which readily offers its images and texts for us to peruse. It does seem likely that fingerprinting and other forensic standbys will continue well into the future. Common sense shows why. As David Fisher explains in his Hard Evidence. "There is a misconception that DNA eventually will replace just about every other sci-crime technology, particu292 AFTERWORD 293 larly fingerprinting. This isn't true. DNA provides evidence that has never before been available in violent crimes, but it's complementary to prints. DNA is rarely found on paper, for example, but prints found on paper provide valuable evidence in a variety of crimes from money laundering to bank robberies to kidnapping."2 Certain trends may also continue, such as that toward specialization, which has been held to be "irreversible."3 At the same time, if it is not desirable for the modern criminalist to be ajack-of-all-trades, he or she must at least have a generalist's knowledge of what is possible in other fields. Otherwise, too much compartmentalization may take place, with a resulting loss of opportunity for cooperation between specialists.4 Above all, the trend toward scientific progress seems sure to continue. Just as the past has yielded such remarkable developments as fingerprinting and DNA profiling, together with computer technology, other breakthroughs no doubt await discovery. It is the least we can expect in the unrelenting fight against crime. NOTES 1. Richard Saferstein, "Forensic Science: Winds of Change," in Samuel M. Gerber, éd., Chemistry and Crime (N.P.: American Chemical Society, 1983), 41. 2. David Fisher, Hard Evidence (New York: Dell, 1995), 190. 3. Saferstein, "Forensic Science," 41. 4. Ibid. ...