Topic 6 - Ethical Standards

• Conduct themselves honourably in the practice of their profession • Promote to the utmost of their power the interests of the Society • Have special regard at all times to the public interest and to the maintenance of the highest standards or competence and integrity • Only undertake any forensic activity commensurate with and in the field within which they are registered or accredited by the Society

• An explicit code of ethical conduct • It can be said that a profession without written, comprehensive and uncompromising code of ethics is no professional at all. • Without question, a code of ethics is essential in a profession • Without it, it profession could not exist • Moreover, the rules and regulations selected must reach the highest standards • There must be no opportunity for compromise. • Professional ethics dictates the application of such absolutes as ‘always’ and ‘never’

• As with other witnesses, forensic scientists obliged to tell the truth • Must attempt to state facts without distortion • Omission of relevant information (statistics) • Allowing incorrect inferences to be made • A witness’s expertise allows them to properly present the evidence

• Principles • Values • Contstraints • Imposed on practitioners by the mandates of their profession and workplace

Scientists are expected to be: * Competent * Thorough * Objective * Willing to communicate freely the results and the significance of their experiments

• Expert witnesses can only be declared by a Judge • Forensic Scientists remain a scientist first and are an expert secondary to that role • Give expert opinions within area of expertise • Used when facts are unclear in a case or • When clarification of procedures is needed or • When a jury needs assistance in making an educated decision

• Lesley Molseed failed to return home after visiting shops in 1975 • She was found three days on the trans-Pennine A672 • She had been stabbed twelve times • None of her clothing was disturbed but her body had been posed and killer had ejaculated on her underwear

• West Yorkshire Police formed felt that Stephan Kiszko fitted their profile even though he had never been in trouble with the police • The police now pursued evidence which might incriminate him, and ignored other leads that might have taken them in other directions • Acting upon the teenage girls’ information and their suspicions of Kiszko’s lifestyle—and having allegedly found girlie magazines and a bag of sweets in his car—the police arrested him on 21 December 1975. • During questioning, the interviewing detectives seized upon every apparent inconsistency between his varying accounts of the relevant days as further demonstration of his likely guilt • Kiszko confessed to the crime after three days of intensive questioning. Prior to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, suspects did not have the right to have a solicitor present during interviews, and the police did not ask Kiszko if he wanted one

• He was sentenced to life imprisonment • Police officers were praised by the judge for the skills in bringing justice to Lesleys killer

• After spending years in prison and several violent attacks and told that he would only ever be eligible for parole if he admitted to having carried out the murder • He was convicted despite being unable to produce sperm • Three females involved gave false evidence which led to Kiszko’s arrest and conviction and that they had lied for a laugh. • In 2006 Ronald Castree was arrested in connection with the murder. DNA evidence was alleged to have shown a “direct hit” with a sample found at the scene of the murder.

Forensic Scientists contribute scientific reliability in court, which may: * Ensure the guilty receive punishment * Free innocent people * Provide a method to correlate a measurement of scientific reliability with a specific facet of forensic science

A type of ethical issue that arises when the available choices and obligations in the specifci situation do not allow for an ethical outcome.

• Truth versus loyalty • Individuals versus group • Immediate vs future • Justice vs compassion

Choosing between maintaining personal integrity or keeping Fidelity pledged to others (e.g. Friends, family members, core workers, employers and organisations)

Choosing between the interests of an individual, or a few and those of a larger community.

Choosing between present benefits and those that are longer term.

Choosing between fair and dispassionate applications of consequences and the individual need.

• Do not use misinformation to support your claims • Do not represent yourself as an expert if you are not • Do not use misleading or unfounded reasoning • Do not divert attention away from an issue • Do not miss use people’s emotions by presenting topics that have little to do with the main idea • Do not deceive people of your intentions, viewpoints, or purpose • Do not hide potential consequences, positive or negative • Do not oversimplify issues to convolute a point • Do not advocate the things that you do not support

• The Police Service who usually the clients and submitters of forensic material • The adversarial system in which results are evaluated • The science on which our data are based • And sometimes, our personal sense of ethics and morals

• Preparation of reports containing minimal information • Reporting findings without an interpretation • Omitting a significant point from a report • Failure to report or acknowledge any witnesses • Failure to differentiate between opinions based on experiment and opinions based on experience • Expressing an opinion with greater certainty than the data justify

• Law enforcement - What am I expected to do? • The adverisal system - How must I do it? • Science - What can I do? • From within the indivdual - What should I do?

• Preece, a long distance lorry driver was convicted by majority of the murder by strangulation in a lorry in Scotland of a woman whose body was found buried on the English side of the Border near Carlisle, • The principal evidence against P had been scientific evidence of blood and seminal stains, hairs, fibres, grass seeds and other material said to link P with the victim. • The scientific evidence was given mainly by Dr. C a forensic scientist who made the tests corroborated by a junior colleague who carried out no tests himself • After P had been in prison for more than seven years questions were raised as to the quality of the scientific evidence and the scientific detachment of Dr. C and the case was referred back to the High Court • Dr C had withheld evidence he should have given about the victim’s blood group, had failed to disclose that stains he had tested were not isolated seminal stains but mixed seminal and vaginal stains, and had reached unwarrantable conclusions.

• Competition • Job security • Economic reward • Principle • Recognition • Ego

Some people within the legal system may see their actions and the consequences to those actions as a game or competition or one-upmanship