Critical Essay 2 - Fire and Arson: Forensic Science and Criminal Justice assessment #2. Got 85%. PDF

Preview

Summary

Fire and Arson: Forensic Science and Criminal Justice assessment #2. Got 85%. 1938 words in length with title page, intro, desc, strengths and limitations, recommendations, conclusion and references....

Description

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

Assessment 2 Critical Essay

Unit: CCJ217 Forensic Science and Criminal Justice Unit Co-ordinator: Sjharn Leeson Tutor: Sjharn Leeson Due Date: 28th of July, 2019 by 11:55 pm Word Count: 1,938

1

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

2

Fire and arson investigation is a rapidly evolving field of forensic science that relies on evidence in order to demonstrate fire origin and causation. Empirical evidence examined as part of this essay will describe fire and arson investigation, its purpose in the criminal justice system, how it works, and how exactly, it is included as expert evidence. Initial research pointed to fire investigation as becoming more scientific, and that technological reconstructions, by way of tools available, enlighten and inform with their visual aids. Predominately the evidence has uncovered many limitations to this field: a lack of scientific methodology and standardisation throughout its processes, which has led to wrongful convictions, inadequate investigator education leading to contextual bias. Recommendations were made to improve the future success of this field, in order to deliver valid expert testimony in a court setting.

Description Fire investigators are tasked with determining whether or not a fire was deliberately lit, with malicious intentions: otherwise known as arson. Suspicious fires that have occurred require trained experts to employ methods of fire analysis for potential admissibility in court (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009). In order to establish premeditation, forensic fire analysts examine the remaining debris for evidence to confirm the cause and origin of the fire. The types of elements fire investigators focus on are physical evidence, doctor’s expert advice regarding fire victims’ injuries, eyewitness testimonies, chemical analysis on debris, photographs of the fire damage, and third-party reports (Dioso-Villa, 2013). Once site safety has been confirmed, fire investigators inspect the alleged arson location. Photographs of the fire damage are taken, and samples are collected for evidence, where forensic evidence collection protocols are observed to preserve its integrity and to eliminate sample contamination (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009).

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

3

Analysts attempt to recreate similar conditions to the fire they are investigating to ascertain if an accelerant was used for the fire. An experiment is conducted using identical materials and divided into two test groups: the first where an accelerant is applied (the treatment group), and the second is the test performed in the absence of an accelerant (the control group). Temperature, wind conditions, and the inclusion of similar chemicals that were present during the fire are burned and the resulting patterns, of the two test groups, are compared to gauge the impact the accelerant had on the materials (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009). Both the visible and the measurable fire effects at the scene of the possible arson site are taken into account in determining if an accelerant was used along with the fire’s origin (Gorbett, Meacham, Wood, & Dembsey, 2015). From this experiment, investigators either agree or disagree that the accelerant propelled the fire. Since the 1940s, fire investigators relied upon fire patterns to pinpoint the fire’s origin. Fire patterns are the visible and physical marks made by the fire (Gorbett et al., 2015). Forensic scientists observe and report on any of the seventeen fire effects the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 921) have found to exist (2017). The NFPA 921 is the standard fire investigators align their findings with (Gorbett et al., 2015). After the initial fire investigation has been completed, where both the physical and visible evidence is evaluated, and the hypothesis made, testing of the treatment and control groups are then conducted by the investigator. The fire scene analysis is compiled, and a determination is made of the cause of the fire, allowing the expert opinion to be used in court as evidence (Dioso-Villa, 2013). Forensic fire analysis, part of the criminal justice system, is experiencing accelerated growth in the changes to the scientific evaluation of the methodology together with the pressing need to re-educate and standardise the terminology the experts utilise (Dioso-Villa, 2013; Lentini, 2012; National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009). Even when investigators underwent testing of their abilities to determine what percentage of accuracy of their

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

4

conclusion, it was found that 90% made an incorrect judgement on the cause of the fire and 75% incorrectly guessed the origin of the fire (Lentini, 2012). As a result, and when taking into account the number of wrongful convictions that have taken place (Acker, 2017; Lentini, 2012; 2015; 2017; Risinger, 2007; Thomas, 2015), there is very little credible research which supports or validates the current fire and arson investigative processes at this time.

Strengths and Limitations The strengths and limitations of fire and arson evidence lean heavily on the limitations, as far as admissibility in court proceedings is concerned. Due to the significant changes recently experienced in fire investigation standards (NFPA 921, 2017), the process is becoming scientific, regulated and standardised (Lentini, 2012; National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009; Rioso-Villa 2013; Thomas, 2015; Gorbett et al., 2015). According to Thomas (2015), the changes in the improved scientific methodology of the investigative process has made way for wrongfully convicted individuals to have their case re-tried and previous convictions overturned. A Senate Bill (344) called ‘The Junk Science Writ’, enacted in Texas in 2013, was the first state to take advantage of the improvements in forensic investigations. At the time, fifty-two wrongfully imprisoned individuals had had their convictions overturned (Thomas, 2015). Fire investigators must reconstruct a scene and replicate the conditions as much as possible which adds to understanding the origin, nature, and causes of the fire (Yuen, Yeoh, Alexander, & Cook, 2014). Fire destroys or limits the usefulness of such evidence like DNA (Klein, Krebs, Gehl, Morgner, Reeger, Augustin, & Edler, 2018), therefore, the amount of biological, scientific evidence from an arson scene is reduced and must rely on other physical and visible forms of evidence. Fire investigators employ many methods to help understand the origin and nature of a fire such as simulations. A digital simulation aids the investigators

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

5

through the means of visible representation and is used in presenting an expert opinion in court, adding validity in the mind of the juror (Yuen et al., 2014). Advancements in numerical methods of determining fire outcomes have increased the accuracy of the tests, and the results are admissible as expert evidence (Yuen et al., 2014). One numerical method successfully used was the fire field model for the arson case at Quakers Hill aged-care facility in 2011. After reconstructing the scene and conducting scientific testing, using the numerical method, investigators determined the origin of the fire and how the fire developed (Yuen et al., 2014). To date, the limitations of this particular investigative branch have been plagued with inaccuracies and lack of scientific basis (Dioso-Villa, 2013; Dioso-Villa, 2016; Henneberg & Morling, 2018; National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009). Fire investigators without the correct education and training requirements to fulfil their role are the leading cause of inaccurate judgements (Dioso-Villa, 2013; National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009). It was discovered that investigators passed on knowledge of their field, based on assumptions, to other investigators, lacking in scientific validation (Dioso-Villa, 2013). Furthermore, there existed a large variance of beliefs and investigation styles between investigators, departments, and states. The field itself has previously lacked uniformity regarding a standard of training and mandatory certification in order to qualify as a forensic witness (Dioso-Villa, 2013). Fire investigators were also found to have high school level physics and chemistry knowledge (Lentini, 2012). A further limitation to this investigative process involves the lack of uniformity and standardisation amongst different practitioners, departments, and states (Dioso-Villa, 2013; Lentini, 2012; National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009). The landmark case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. changed the requirements for forensic evidence to be scientific in its method and techniques. Previously, the investigation process lacked validity.

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

6

The process was not falsifiable, peer-reviewed, or testable: therefore, did not follow the rules for the scientific method and did not qualify as admissible as scientific evidence in court (Dioso-Villa, 2013; Dioso-Villa, 2016; National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009; Thomas, 2015). Until the ‘Daubert standard’ has been adopted across all investigators and territories, investigators presenting evidence out of jurisdiction will result in invalid judgements. Of all the forensic investigative procedures, fire and arson suffer from the most contextual bias (Lentini, 2015). Contextual bias is when investigators become influenced by their expectations, and they are unable to remain objective, and therefore, arrive at an incorrect decision. Fire investigators that testify as an expert witness during a court proceeding are considered by the jury and the judge as speaking from a scientific methodology background, and that what they are stating is fact (Lentini, 2012). On this basis, the jury will be influenced by this expert witness and take their opinion as valid, when it may not be. Dioso-Villa (2013) claims that contextual bias persists in fire and arson investigations today.

Recommendations To address the lack of standardized, expert training for fire and arson investigative specialists, it is recommended that nation-wide re-education for each investigator to be completed. First, the minimum education level for fire investigators would be a bachelor’s degree in a natural or applied science (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009). Furthermore, a through, proven knowledge in fire science, thermodynamics and investigation would be necessary to attain (Lentini, 2012). The education they receive would include advanced physics and chemistry that relates to their field (Lentini, 2012). Each investigator would be required to apply for mandatory certification, without which they would be unable to be employed in their field. Re-certification would be renewed every five years and would

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

7

provide the investigators support services for such things as mental health problems (due to the nature of their work), and a workers’ union. Re-certification would be dependent on passing regular examinations. It would be necessary to attend mandatory workshops for imparting new scientific methods in their field whenever they are available to keep their skills and knowledge up-to-date. A further recommendation for the fire and arson investigators entails the standardisation of the methodology and techniques the practitioners follow. In order to achieve this, the investigators would be required to adopt the new standards, or they would not be employable. A national standard is recommended to be established, in line with the ‘Daubert standard’ and those set out in the NAS Report, to facilitate international relations and knowledge-sharing (Dioso-Villa, 2013; Dioso-Villa, 2016; National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2009; Thomas, 2015). Each step of the investigative and experimentation process would be associated with a scientific method, where possible, in order to be considered admissible in court. To further ensure a scientific basis of decision making, each step of this process would also undergo a ‘test’ to maintain its inclusion in the investigative findings and thereby to provide validity. The final recommendation involves the management of contextual bias. Those who fall victim to this type of bias during the investigative process sometimes do so on a subconscious level: the individual may not be completely aware of their error (Dioso-Villa, 2013). To best manage contextual bias, Professor Thompson (2011) advises a division of labour by appointing case managers to interact with the police and the forensic investigators. The case manager would function in full knowledge of the police and the fire and arson investigations, thereby eliminating the possibility of the fire investigator making a decision based on knowledge of the context (Thompson, 2011).

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION Conclusion In conclusion, details of fire and arson investigation, and their role in the criminal justice system were described. The changes taking place in this field are positive and will ensure a refined scientific basis, that utilises helpful and educational tools. The deficiencies discovered in the research prevent complete validity and admissibility, in court, of the determinations made by the investigators. Other limitations of this investigative process require the recommendations in this essay to be considered as part of the improvements to this field.

8

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

9

References Acker, J. R. (2017). Taking stock of innocence: Movements, mountains, and wrongful convictions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 33(1), 8-25. doi:10.1177/1043986216673008

Dioso-Villa, R. (2013). Scientific and legal developments in fire and arson investigation expertise in Texas v. Willingham. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology. 14(2), 817-848. Retrieved from https://www.heinonline.org/

Dioso‐Villa, R. (2016). Is the expert admissibility game fixed?: Judicial gatekeeping of fire and arson evidence. Law & Policy, 38(1), 54-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12047

Edmond, G., & San Roque, M. (2012). The cool crucible: Forensic science and the frailty of the criminal trial. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 51-68. doi:10.1080/10345329.2012.12035944

Gorbett, G. E., Meacham, B. J., Wood, C. B., & Dembsey, N. A. (2015). Use of damage in fire investigation: A review of fire patterns analysis, research and future direction. Fire Science Reviews, 4(1), 1-35. doi:10.1186/s40038-015-0008-4

Henneberg, M. L., & Morling, N. R. (2018). Unconfirmed accelerants: Controversial evidence in fire investigations. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 22(1), 45-67. doi:10.1177/1365712717746419

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

10

Klein, A., Krebs, O., Gehl, A., Morgner, J., Reeger, L., Augustin, C., & Edler, C. (2018). Detection of blood and DNA traces after thermal exposure.International Journal of Legal Medicine, 132(4), 1025-1033. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/10.1007/s00414-017-1712-5

Lentini, J. J. (2012). The evolution of fire: investigation and its impact on arson cases. Criminal Justice, 27(1), 12-17. Retrieved from https://link-galegroupcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/apps/doc/A316317703/AONE?u=griffith&sid=AON E&xid=51d8b3e7

Lentini, J. J. (2015). Contextual bias in fire investigations: scientific vs. investigative data. American Bar Association, 44(3), 40-45. Retrieved from https://link-galegroupcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/apps/doc/A437508073/AONE?u=griffith&sid=AON E&xid=4a5259e7

Lentini, J. J. (2017). What fire litigators need to know in 2017. American Bar Association, 13(4), 18-21, 31. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/1939706470?accounti d=14543

National Fire Protection Association. (2017). NFPA 921: Guide for Fire & Explosion Investigations. Technical Committee on Fire Investigations. Retrieved from https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/921/TIA_921_17_1.pdf

CRITICAL ESSAY – FIRE AND ARSON INVESTIGATION

11

National Research Council (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. (Document No. 228091). https://doi.org/10.17226/12589

Risinger, D. M. (2007). Innocents convicted: An empirically justified factual wrongful conviction rate. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97(3), 761-806. Retrieved from https://go-galegroupcom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=griffith&id=GALE|A17177209 2&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon

Thomas, S. (2015). Addressing wrongful convictions: An examination of Texas's new junk science writ and other measures for protecting the innocent. Houston Law Review, 52(3), 1037-1069. Retrieved from https://www.heinonline.org/

Thompson, W. C. (2011). What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(2-3), 123-134. doi:10.1080/00450618.2010.541499

Yuen, A. C., Yeoh, G. H., Alexander, B., & Cook, M. (2014). Fire scene investigation of an arson fire incident using computational fluid dynamics based fire simulation. Building Simulation, 7(5), 477-487. doi:10.1007/s12273-014-0164-9...