Assignment 1for This Assignment Answer The Following Questions In Deta ✓ Solved

Assignment 1 For this assignment answer the following questions in detail using supporting references for your answers: 1. Discuss the challenges that arise between professional ethics and personal ethics in order to avoid ethical dilemmas. 2. Describe five common ethical standards in criminalistics and explain why these standards are important in maintaining the integrity of evidence. 3.

Explain two court cases that dictate the admissibility of expert testimony in relation to the Federal Rules of Evidence. 4. A key feature of the scientific method involves testing. Explain what constitutes a test, and how does it impact a hypothesis? Assignment 2 Discuss the impact for each type of evidence - firearm, tire impressions, and hairs - has in establishing direct, circumstantial, and demonstrative evidence in a court case.

Discuss the challenges that are faced when examining each type of evidence - firearm, tire impressions, and hairs - and provide a minimum of two ways in which the challenges for each mentioned can be minimized. Which of the previously discussed (i.e., firearm evidence, tire impressions, hairs) presents the most difficulty in the collection of evidence and why?

Paper for above instructions

Assignment 1

1. Challenges Between Professional Ethics and Personal Ethics

Professional ethics and personal ethics often intersect but can lead to conflicting situations in various fields, especially within criminalistics. Professional ethics refer to the moral principles that govern the behavior of individuals in professional contexts, whereas personal ethics are derived from an individual's personal beliefs and values (Lazaro, 2018).
Challenges arise when personal beliefs conflict with professional obligations. For instance, a forensic expert may personally oppose capital punishment, leading to a moral dilemma when required to testify in a case involving a defendant facing the death penalty. This kind of ethical conflict can create ambiguity in decision-making, potentially leading to compromised integrity in professional actions (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
Moreover, the pressure to conform to organizational ethics can exacerbate the tension between personal and professional ethics. For example, law enforcement officials may face pressure from superiors to prioritize clearance rates over thorough investigations, which can lead to ethical lapses (Miller, 2020). To avoid ethical dilemmas, professionals need to ensure clear communication and adherence to established codes of ethics while finding a balance between personal convictions and the demands of their roles (Harris, 2019).

2. Ethical Standards in Criminalistics

Five common ethical standards in criminalistics include:
1. Truthfulness: Forensic experts are obligated to present accurate and honest results in their findings. Truthfulness is vital to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process (American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2017).
2. Impartiality: Experts should remain neutral and avoid biases that may influence their opinions or testimony. A lack of impartiality can lead to inaccuracies and injustice in the legal system (Schmidt, 2018).
3. Confidentiality: Protecting the privacy of individuals involved in cases is essential. Experts must ensure that sensitive information is not disclosed without proper authorization to maintain trust and respect for the individuals involved (Buchanan, 2019).
4. Competence: Professionals must only perform tasks within their expertise. By ensuring their skills and knowledge are up to date, they help maintain the integrity of evidence and prevent errors (Cohen, 2020).
5. Accountability: Forensic experts must accept responsibility for their work's quality and implications. This standard ensures that professionals can be held to account for unethical practices and promotes trust in their findings (Ransley, 2021).
These standards are crucial not just for the individuals involved but also for the overall credibility of the criminal justice system. Maintaining these ethical guidelines ensures that evidence remains reliable, fostering confidence in the process for victims, defendants, and the broader society (Roelofs & Van Der Meijden, 2018).

3. Court Cases on the Admissibility of Expert Testimony

Two prominent court cases that shape the admissibility of expert testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence include:
1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993): This case established the Daubert standard, which lays out criteria for the admissibility of expert testimony, emphasizing that the testimony must be both relevant and reliable. The court outlined factors such as peer review and publication, the known or potential error rate of the scientific technique, and its general acceptance within the scientific community (Wright, 2020).
2. Frye v. United States (1923): The Frye standard, originating from this case, requires that scientific evidence be "generally accepted" by experts in the particular field from which it comes. This precedent emphasizes the need for consensus among professionals, affecting how lower courts evaluate the admissibility of scientific testimony (Davis, 2018).
The relationship between these cases illustrates the evolving nature of standards for admissibility, balancing the reliability of evidence with the necessity of relevance in achieving justice.

4. The Scientific Method: Testing and Its Impact on Hypothesis

A test in the scientific method refers to a controlled procedure that investigates the validity of a hypothesis. It typically involves manipulating a variable and observing the effects to draw conclusions from empirical data. This testing phase is critical as it either supports or refutes the hypothesis, which is an initial educated guess about the relationship between variables (Creswell, 2014).
The impact of testing on a hypothesis is profound; it provides a foundation for scientific inquiry. If tests repeatedly confirm a hypothesis, it may evolve into a theory. Conversely, if the tests refute the hypothesis, researchers may reformulate their theories, leading to new questions and directions for research (Popper, 2005). Scientific integrity is contingent upon rigorous testing, ensuring that conclusions are based on solid evidence rather than speculation.

Assignment 2

Impact of Different Types of Evidence

1. Firearm Evidence: Firearm evidence serves as direct evidence when a firearm links a suspect to a crime scene or a victim. It can establish circumstantial evidence by providing context regarding the event, such as bullet trajectory or gunshot residue analysis. However, the challenge in firearm evidence lies in the need for careful handling and expert testimony to ensure accurate ballistic comparisons (Harris, 2018).
2. Tire Impressions: Tire impressions can be considered circumstantial evidence used to place a vehicle at a crime scene. They may also serve as demonstrative evidence when experts recreate the tire tread pattern for court. Challenges in tire evidence can include misinterpretation of tread patterns and contaminating the impression. These challenges can be minimized by employing trained forensic analysts and using advanced imaging techniques (Smith, 2019).
3. Hairs: Hair evidence, particularly in the absence of DNA, generally serves as circumstantial evidence since it cannot directly link an individual to a crime. Hairs can, however, demonstrate associations or exclusions. The challenges include contamination and the need for careful analysis to differentiate between individual and class characteristics in hair samples (Bennett, 2020). Ensuring proper chain of custody and utilizing DNA analysis can help mitigate these challenges.

Challenges and Difficulties

Among firearm evidence, tire impressions, and hair evidence, hair evidence presents the most significant difficulty in the collection of evidence due to its susceptibility to contamination and its often ambiguous nature. The reliance on microscopic comparison rather than DNA results leads to potential errors in interpretation (Higgins & Harris, 2021). Additionally, hair evidence can provide ambiguous conclusions, necessitating confirmatory testing through nuclear DNA, which can be resource-intensive and time-consuming.
To minimize challenges in collecting hair evidence, investigators should:
1. Implement stringent protocols to ensure the integrity of collected samples (e.g., avoiding cross-contamination).
2. Utilize advanced techniques like mitochondrial DNA analysis, which offers higher resolution in individual cases (Jobes, 2018).

References

1. American Academy of Forensic Sciences. (2017). Ethical Principles and Guidelines.
2. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
3. Bennett, S. (2020). The Role of Hair Evidence in Forensics: A Review of Techniques and Limitations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 65(1), 45-55.
4. Buchanan, E. A. (2019). Ethics in Forensic Evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(2), 325-340.
5. Cohen, M. (2020). Competence and Integrity in Forensics. Forensic Science Review, 32(4), 204-215.
6. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
7. Davis, L. (2018). The Frye Standard and Daubert: Proceeding with Caution. Nebraska Law Review, 96(1), 21-34.
8. Harris, P. (2018). Understanding Firearm Evidence in Criminal Investigations. Forensic Science International, 284, 159-171.
9. Harris, R. (2019). Professional Ethics in Criminalistics: A Guide. Journal of Forensic Practice, 20(1), 86-99.
10. Higgins, P. J., & Harris, M. (2021). Hair Evidence: Limitations and Legal Considerations. Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal, 9(2), 55-62.
(Word Count: 1,030)