Training and licensing of forensic professionals

DEFINITION: Education in forensic techniques and certification of competence in the practice of such techniques.

SIGNIFICANCE: Professionalization implies that self-regulation, in some cases supplemented by laws, should determine appropriate standards for the education and certification of those who practice the profession. The standards of competence for forensic professionals, however, are in many cases unspecified or vary by jurisdiction, or from field to field, or are only loosely connected with evidential standards. This situation has prompted both demands for greater professionalization of the field of forensic science and worries about the restrictive effects of excessive regulation.

In the late nineteenth century, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created his master detective character Sherlock Holmes, who used his multifarious knowledge and his powers of ratiocination to clarify mysteries that had flummoxed Scotland Yard’s energetic but imperceptive Inspector Lestrade, the idea of applying science to the solution of crime was largely speculative. Since that time, forensic science has developed sophisticated techniques and given birth to a variety of professional organizations, but still only limited agreement exists on exactly what forensic professionals should know, or even what constitutes competence in the field. Debate continues concerning how should modern criminalists—the heirs of both Holmes and Lestrade—should be trained and certified.

Varying Standards

In the early twenty-first century, are licensed throughout the United States, but forensics as a field is wide open. Some specialists, such as medical examiners, are subject to certification, and many specialists are regulated by their own professional organizations, but some observers have argued that greater unification and professionalization of those who have business with forensic issues is in order.

The problem is that “forensic science” is not a natural science; rather, forensic science includes any science that is useful, more or less often, in settling facts of interest in the courtroom. Over time, new sciences emerge and old “sciences” sometimes fade. In the era of Alphonse Bertillon (1853–1914), knowing how to measure various human physical features, such as ears, was important, but fingerprinting largely displaced that older system of identification. More recently, fingerprinting has seen its own preeminence challenged by DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) “fingerprinting” as well as by worries about accuracy and puzzles created by computerization.

In addition to disagreements about the criteria for training and the necessity and scope of licensing, disagreements exist even about standards for evidence. With regard to fingerprints, for example, no standard has been established regarding the minimum number of points of commonality that must be present for examiners to consider a match reliable. Various nations have differing requirements, and requirements in the United States vary across states and even across jurisdictions within states.

In the courtroom, these issues are reflected in debates about who can or should be accorded status. Leading British forensic entomologist Zakaria Erzinçlioglu (1951–2002) at the time of his death was conducting a vigorous campaign for the British courts to rethink who ought to be able to function as expert witnesses in those courts.

In 1995, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), concerned by the wide variation in certification standards used by different boards, undertook to make the credentialing process for forensic scientists more rational. As a result, the AAFS in 2000 established the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board (FSAB) as a way of “accrediting the certifiers.” The FSAB considered and rejected the idea of allowing accreditation through independent organizations, such as the National Commission of Certifying Agencies or the American Board of Medical Specialties, because “the forensic community would be unwisely delegating its professional oversight responsibility to non-forensic organizations.”

Georgia Private Investigator Bill

The complex issues in the area of licensing are illustrated by the controversy in 2006 over a bill passed by the Georgia state legislature (2006 H.B. 1259) making it (with limited exceptions) a to engage in the private detective business without a license. This included “obtaining or furnishing…information” about crimes or the “securing of evidence…to be used before any court.” The bill was supported by the Georgia Association of Professional Private Investigators as a way to improve the image of private investigators and “protect the public” from untrained, fly-by-night amateurs. “We have all seen them,” the president of that organization wrote. “They spring up.…They screw up the investigation and their actions result in their clients losing their cases.…Meanwhile the ’investigator’ has decided that this is not as much fun as they had thought and…moved on.”

Computer consultants argued that the bill would unreasonably require them to be licensed as private investigators and that in general the bill’s provisions were inconsistent with the (sometimes) legally recognized right of scientific experts to examine and testify to their findings. Moreover, as computer commentator Mark Rasch sensibly and cynically observed, “Internet based crimes occur across jurisdictions, but licensing boards’ authority does not. So a company performing in Georgia, run by a licensed PI in Georgia who had to examine a hard drive in California, theoretically would either have to obtain a license in California or retain the services of a California PI to do the work. Is this a full employment program for former cops?”

In May 2006, Governor Sonny Perdue vetoed the bill, noting that it “fails to exclude from the private investigator licensing requirement many professions that collect information or may be called as expert witnesses in court proceedings.” Although computer forensics consultants celebrated the veto as a victory, the political issue about increasing the penalty was not dead, and in any event unlicensed investigation remained illegal (albeit a misdemeanor) under existing law. Other states, of course, have other laws, some similar and some not. The larger issues—about what constitutes competence in matters of forensic science, who should have the authorization to train and to certify that competence, and how to ensure national (and, increasingly, international) commensurability—remain unresolved.

Continued Advancements

Several programs and organizations now work to improve standards and training for forensic scientists. The National Institute of Standards and Technology maintains the Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC). OSAC works to define national-level best practices, standard protocols, and minimum requirements for forensic analysis on a national level. It covers numerous forensic disciplines, including wildlife forensics and digital evidence examination.

Bibliography

"About Us." NIST, 27 Dec. 2023, www.nist.gov/organization-scientific-area-committees-forensic-science/about-us#:~:text=OSAC%20was%20established%20in%202014,between%20disciplines%20related%20to%20terminology%2C. Accessed 18 Aug. 2024.

Barnett, Peter D. Ethics in Forensic Science: Professional Standards for the Practice of Criminalistics. 2d ed., CRC Press, 2011.

Hallcox, Jarrett, and Amy Welch. Bodies We’ve Buried: Inside the National Forensic Academy, the World’s Top CSI Training School. New York: Berkley Books, 2006.

Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2001.

Rasch, Mark. “Forensic Felonies.” Security Focus, April 24, 2006.

Robberson, John. “President’s Pen.” The Connection: Official Newsletter of the Georgia Association of Professional Private Investigators, April, 2006, 3.

"The Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science." NIST, www.nist.gov/organization-scientific-area-committees-forensic-science. Accessed 18 Aug. 2024.