Whose Side Are You On?

At last week’s National Institutes of Justice (NIJ) Impression and Pattern Evidence Symposium (IPES) there was an exchange between me and Kenneth Melson regarding his leadership of the Subcommittee for Forensic Science and regarding a statement he made during his presentation at the Symposium wondering, “Where is the legislation?” that would be issuing from the suggestions from the NAS Report. I’ve gotten a lot of questions about that exchange, so I wanted to clarify exactly what that was about.

What this boils down to is that most forensic scientists don’t understand who our “leaders” are and who claims to be speaking for us to the outside world. Those leaders and the people who claim to be speaking for us are the reason that many people, including defense attorneys and those that we see as being on “the other side”, see us as… well, as being on “the other side” for them. We aren’t necessarily being attacked for no reason. You just haven’t seen the obnoxiousness that has been put forward on our behalf.

So the question is… whose side are you on? I’m not asking which choice you’ve made. I’m asking whether or not you know which side has chosen you. Because, if you are a forensic scientist, someone is using you as a mascot. There are groups of people who are claiming that they speak for you right now.

You should know who claims to be speaking for you and what they are saying. Because it explains a lot about why forensic scientists are being treated the way they are right now. If we allow prosecutors and groups that fight transparency and oversight to claim that they speak for us then we will be treated as if we are not the objective scientists we claim to be.

For those of you who are new to this discussion, I have talked a little bit about some of these things before. During the week of June 28 to July 2, I covered the NAS Report Recommendations 6, 7, 8, and 9. That might be a good place to start to begin to understand why it’s not a good thing to let the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD), their accrediting body (ASCLD/LAB), the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), and people like Kenneth Melson, a career prosecutor, speak for you as a forensic scientist.

At the very least you need to know what they are saying so that you can understand why it is making other people so angry right now. Which is what I’m going to be talking about this week.

I’ll do a recap of the Draft Legislation and how that came to be. I’ll also talk about what our “leaders” have been saying about the NAS Report and the Draft Legislation, which they helped to write. I’ll also explain why I found it difficult to believe the fact that Kenneth Melson, given his heavy involvement in the management of the organizations that helped write the Draft Legislation, would dare to stand in front of hundreds of people and act like he hadn’t seen hide nor hair of any legislation.

Remember, most of these people are attorneys and bureaucrats, so prepare yourself for tidal waves of double-speak and bullshit. And these are the people who claim they are speaking on your behalf, so they are controlling your reputation. You should pay attention to what they are saying because defense attorneys and others are.

I’m going to list the posts from the week of June 28 to July 2 below so you can jump to those, but there is also an entire page with all the NAS Report posts from all the recommendations up to number 12, as well as a page on the National Criminal Justice Commission Act (NCJCA), which you should be aware of as well.

June 28, 2010
How to Fix Forensic Science: NAS Recommendations 6, 7, 8, and 9

June 29, 2010
Our Forensic Leaders Have Failed Us, Part 1: A Tale of Two Lawsuits

June 30, 2010
Our Forensic Leaders Have Failed Us, Part 2: Actions Speak Louder Than Words

July 1, 2010
The Draft Legislation and the Subcommittee on Forensic Science: Same People, Same Outcomes

July 2, 2010
Wrap Up: How NAS Recommendations 6, 7, 8, and 9 Can Be Used to Fix Forensic Science

See all NAS posts.