Forensic evidence is present everywhere, but usually it is of little or no importance. However, at the scene of a crime it can be very useful. The presence of forensic evidence can lead the police to the offender and often plays a crucial part in the prosecution and defence of the defendant. However, although it is important, there are many downfalls in the use of this evidence, both before the evidence is brought to court and in the court itself. These are problems which I have encountered in my research into this topic, and aim to address. I will endeavour to suggest ways in which these problems could be solved in a way that is balanced, in favour of neither the prosecution nor the defence.

Although forensic science evidence is at the scene of every crime in varying degrees, I have decided to concentrate on the use of forensic science evidence in homicide cases. I will particularly concentrate on the value and use of DNA evidence, and the arguments surrounding its use. This is an interesting topic, DNA evidence having been used very successfully in the past to prove guilt or innocence, and at one time deemed to be infallible - but a level of criticism has also been maintained. Appeals are often formed on the basis of flawed forensic evidence, and they regularly succeed. However, if forensic science evidence is used and presented to the jury in the correct manner and in the right context, not as just one piece of evidence, but as one piece of evidence among a wide spectrum of evidence, it can be very successful.

Continue to Chapter One.

Back to dissertation front page.