ETHICS
706
ETHICS
R Weinstock, University of California, Los Angeles,
and West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Los Angeles, CA, USA
G B Leong, Center for Forensic Services, Western State
Hospital, Tacoma, WA, USA
J A Silva, VA Outpatient Clinic, San Jose, CA, USA
Copyright © 2000 Academic Press
doi:10.1006/rwfs.2000.0500
Introduction
Ethics in the forensic sciences is complex and challenging, as a result of functioning at the interface of
science and law — two major disciplines with differing methods, values and goals. The law needs to
obtain definitive answers in order to resolve disputes promptly and attain justice. In contrast, science
reaches tentative conclusions subject to change with
further evidence. Forensic science applies science to
legal issues, but many differences exist between legal
ethics and either scientific or professional ethics.
There are specific ethical requirements for each scientific discipline with additional ethical requirements
whenever scientific skills are applied to legal matters.
Frequently, the two ethical requirements supplement
each other. Many scientific disciplines facilitate forensic ethics by addressing the ethical aspects of the
application of that discipline to legal issues, but not all
disciplines do so. Whenever these requirements conflict, ethical dilemmas are created. Although there are
many potential ethical problems in forensic science,
most problems can be resolved by following Codes of
Ethics or standards of good forensic practice.
Forensic Science Ethics and
Personal Ethics
Forensic science ethics is the ethics of applying science
to the law. Many ethical facets in forensic science are
controversial. Some forensic scientists attempt to resolve ethical disputes by making an apparently arbitrary distinction between ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’.
However, these terms have been used interchangeably
in philosophy for many years. The arbitrary distinction between ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ enables those forensic scientists to avoid many ethical dilemmas by
labeling certain ethical problems as only personal
moral issues. Such ethical matters and dilemmas are
thereby excluded from scientific and professional
ethics discourse and consideration. The more appropriate distinction would be between personal ethics or
morals, current professional and scientific ethics and
the practitioner’s view of what should be professional
and scientific ethical behavior. Most issues can be
considered from either a personal or a scientific and
professional ethics perspective, even though complex
ethical problems may not lead to a consensus.
In the personal sphere, ‘ethics’ or ‘morals’ refers to
the concerns forensic scientists have that are based on
personal ethical (moral) or religious considerations
not derived from their professional and scientific
roles. In the professional and scientific spheres,
‘ethics’ is the term traditionally used. ‘Ethics’ in this
context refers to fundamental foundational rules or
guidelines regulating conduct in scientific and professional disciplines or forensic science organizations. In
contrast, rules of conduct or matters of etiquette are
less fundamental matters that should be distinguished
from ethics.
Organizational Forensic Science Ethics
For various reasons, not all professional and scientific
organizations have ethical requirements or methods
of enforcing them. When an organization does enforce its ethics, due process procedures are required
both ethically and legally, in which accused members
have an opportunity to hear the charges against them
and present a defense. The advantage of ethics enforcement by a forensic science organization is that
knowledgeable peers oversee one another. Otherwise
such oversight may be taken over by outsiders, who
may be insufficiently familiar with the discipline or
profession to be able to be fair and effective.
Ethical requirements ideally should be enforceable.
They should address minimally acceptable professional and scientific behavior. Behavior below these
standards should result in a finding of an ethical
violation with appropriate punitive sanctions. Sanctions can range from warnings and reprimands, to
suspension and expulsion from an organization. A
limitation on the ability of organizations to enforce
ethical standards is that they cannot enforce ethical
standards and requirements on nonmembers or on
individuals who withdraw from membership. However, some organizations publish the fact that a
member resigned from the organization while under
an ethics investigation, in disciplines in which
ETHICS
licensing boards have authority, licenses could be
suspended or revoked.
Although it is essential to meet basic minimal
ethical requirements, the attainment of only a minimal threshold of ethical practice does not necessarily
indicate good forensic practice. Failure to find an
ethical violation is far from meaning that the professional or scientist necessarily is displaying impeccable
ethics. Like the ‘not guilty’ adjudication in legal
proceedings, it may mean only that there is an insufficient basis to prove that a practitioner has violated
forensic science ethics.
Basic Minimal Ethics and
Aspirational Ethics
Some organizations distinguish between ethical requirements representing basic minimal requirements,
and aspirational standards or standards of good forensic science practice. Although many organizations
confuse these two types of ethical standards, a clear
distinction is important so that forensic scientists can
determine which provisions represent basic minimal
standards that must never be violated, and which represent a higher ideal threshold of desirable and exemplary conduct. The aspirational provisions represent
desirable standards towards which forensic practitioners should strive. ‘Good’ forensic scientists will do
so. In contrast to minimal standards, failure to achieve
aspirational standards should not lead to sanctions.
Sometimes, there could be an acceptable reason for
not meeting the standards of good forensic practice.
An aspirational standard may sometimes be unenforceable because an assessment of the intent of the
forensic scientist may be necessary in order to evaluate the behavior. Since intent is subjective, its determination may be difficult, if not impossible, to
ascertain. Nonetheless, a good forensic scientist will
try to meet the aspirational standard. Alternatively, a
standard may be potentially enforceable, but may not
be a minimal standard meriting sanction. Instead it
might represent more a matter of desirable or good
forensic practice.
Poor forensic practice does not necessarily mean
unethical practice. Some inadequate forensic evaluations might represent lack of knowledge or failure to
keep up to date in a forensic science discipline. The
appropriate action in such instances might involve
education rather than a punitive sanction. Other inadequate evaluations may result from time pressure
and/or overwork that may contribute to overlooking
some important aspects of a case. Although an evaluation may be inadequate, the negligence might not be
of sufficient gravity to violate a basic minimal ethics
requirement.
707
Codes of Ethics in Forensic
Science Practice
Organizations like the American Academy of Forensic Sciences have developed a Code of Ethics and
Conduct that the organization enforces. The Ethics
Code states that members ‘shall refrain from providing any material misrepresentation of education,
training, experience or area of expertise’. It also
requires members to ‘refrain from providing any
misrepresentation of data upon which an expert opinion or conclusion is based’. Additional provisions are
part of the Code of Conduct. They are designed to
prevent members from falsely claiming to represent
an organization and from engaging in conduct adverse to the best interests and purposes of the organization. Such transgressions of a Code of Conduct may
violate the rules of the organization but may not
represent violations of fundamental forensic scientific
ethics. The Code of Ethics and Conduct also has
provisions describing due process procedures.
When enforcing a Code of Ethics, the following
questions, as enumerated by Rosner, should be
answered:
1. What provision is the member accused of violating?
2. What are the criteria for that provision?
3. What are the relevant data?
4. What is the reasoning by which it is determined
that the member has or has not violated the specific provision?
It is important to write ethics provisions clearly in
order to prevent ambiguity that could result in an
ethics hearing degenerating into a popularity contest.
For example, in the absence of clear guidelines, there
is a danger that a verdict could primarily become
dependent on whether a hearing panel likes an accused individual, whether the accused person’s views
on a controversial issue are popular, or whether the
accused is part of the ‘in’ group. As a result, the actual
seriousness of the ethics offense would become much
less relevant, with less effort expended towards determining exactly what happened and for what reason,
thus obscuring the stated goal of the hearing.
If there are sections of the Code that potentially are
unclear to a reader, clarifying interpretations should
be disseminated to the organization’s membership.
It is essential for members to have information in
advance about the specific types of conduct that are
prohibited (minimal standards), with a clear distinction from those that are encouraged (aspirational
standards). If there is any potential ambiguity, a
way must be found to provide the necessary clarification. One possible means is to print an explanation
of the issue in the organization’s newsletter.
ETHICS
Standards for Good Forensic Practice
Aspirational standards are standards of good practice
or even excellence. Good forensic practitioners should
strive to attain these standards despite the fact that
only minimal basic ethical standards are subject to
enforcement. The American Academy of Forensic
Sciences’ Committee on Good Forensic Practice has
developed the following Standards for Good Forensic
Practice.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Forensic scientists generally should follow the
standards of their respective disciplines. They
should apply with care any assessment methods,
technical skills, scientific and other areas of specialized knowledge, to legal issues and questions.
They should always strive to do high quality
work.
Forensic scientists should strive to keep current
and maintain competence in their scientific disciplines. Although competence at minimum
should be a goal, forensic scientists should strive
for excellence.
Forensic scientists should demonstrate honesty
and should strive for objectivity, by examining
scientific questions from all reasonable perspectives and by actively seeking all relevant obtainable data that could distinguish between
plausible alternative possibilities.
Forensic scientists should strive to be free from
any conflicts of interest. They should possess an
independence that would protect their objectivity. Any potential conflicts of interest should be
disclosed. Work on relevant cases should be
avoided or discontinued if objectivity may be
compromised.
Forensic scientists should undertake cases and
give opinions only in their areas of expertise, attained through education, training and experience.
Forensic scientists should attempt to identify,
deter and help eliminate unethical behavior by
other forensic scientists through methods such as
discussion with a colleague, education, and if
unsuccessful, by filing an ethics complaint.
It is essential to recognize that honest differences
of opinion exist and do not imply unethical
behavior by either expert. The legal adversary
system includes opposing attorneys seeking out
experts with favorable opinions. Forensic scientists should not be blamed unfairly for unpopular
verdicts, honest differences of opinion, or the
vagaries of the legal system.
Passions against an opposing disagreeing expert,
or personal animosity, should not constitute the
basis for an ethics complaint. Ethics complaints
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
708
must be made in good faith. If based on passion
alone, such ethics complaints themselves are
inappropriate.
Forensic scientists should present their opinions
to the trier of fact in concise understandable
language, but care must be taken since such
efforts can result in oversimplification and loss
of some precision. In their efforts to communicate effectively, forensic scientists should strive to
be as accurate as possible and avoid distortion.
Every reasonable effort should be made to ensure
that others (including attorneys) do not distort
the forensic scientist’s opinions.
Forensic scientists should strive to instill the
highest ethical and scientific standards in their
students and colleagues through such means as
teaching, supervision, setting a good example,
publications, and presentations at meetings.
Forensic scientists should strive for excellence
and the highest degree of integrity. Forensic
opinions should not be based on undisciplined
bias, personal advantage, or a desire to please an
employer or an attorney.
When forensic scientists are asked to express
opinions on a legal issue, they should make
every effort to become familiar with the applicable legal criteria in the pertinent jurisdiction.
They should take care to reach only those legal
conclusions that result from proper application
of the data to that legal issue.
Unlike attorneys, forensic scientists are not adversaries. They take an oath in court to tell the
whole truth. They should make every effort to
uphold that oath.
When a forensic scientist accepts any privileged
information from an attorney, care should be
taken to ensure that all such information is kept
confidential and does not reach the opposing
side. After accepting such information, forensic
scientists should not provide their services to the
opposing side unless legally ordered to do so.
Forensic scientists should alert attorneys not to
make payment or provide privileged information, if they wish to retain the option to be
employed by the opposing side.
Ethical Problems in the Forensic Sciences
Some forensic scientists confuse their role with that of
an attorney. The attorney’s role is to present the best
one-sided case for his/her client, the only exception
being not to argue for anything the attorney knows to
be untrue. Unlike an expert witness, attorneys take no
oath in court. In contrast, forensic scientists take an
oath ‘to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
ETHICS
the truth’. If forensic scientists assume the attorney’s
total advocacy role and present the best one-sided case
for the retaining attorney regardless of the ‘truth’ and
the oath taken, the forensic experts may be perceived
as ‘hired guns’. They thereby vilify not only their own
reputation, but also taint that of the entire field. Many
forensic scientists consider the ‘hired gun’ problem the
most serious ethical problem in forensic science.
A ‘hired gun’ can establish a track record of testifying for both the plaintiff (prosecution) and defense,
depending on the side that hires the expert. An effective ‘hired gun’ can appear impartial and objective by
giving one-sided misleading persuasive explanations
for whichever side hires him/her for a particular case.
‘Hired guns’ not only always make the best case for
the side hiring them, but alternatively they also could
do so for a side for which they have a personal bias,
regardless of which side they actually believe is right.
In contrast, it is possible to have a bias and preferentially work for one side, yet refuse to take on a case
unless the forensic scientist honestly believes an opinion is true with the greatest objectivity possible. The
distinction between a hired gun and an expert with an
idiosyncratic opinion is not always clear-cut without
knowing what is in the mind of the expert. Even if
experts firmly believe an opinion because of personal
bias so that they honestly may be telling what they
believe to be true, others frequently might incorrectly
view the opinion as a dishonest distortion of the truth.
Sometimes, the problem is an insufficient effort by the
expert to be objective, or an honest difference of
opinion between forensic scientists.
Honest differences of opinion do exist as they do in
every science and profession including law, and it is
unfair to blame forensic scientists and forensic science
for the battle of the ‘experts’. Additionally, once a
forensic scientist reaches an honest objective opinion,
the pressures of our adversary system encourage
experts to advocate for their opinion. It is difficult
to remain totally objective when defending an opinion. Subtle pressures can also bias an expert, such as
the wish to please an attorney or an employer. An
honest expert should make every effort to form
opinions based on the evidence even if contrary to
the wishes of the hiring person or institution. There
are also questions about what it means to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Does
it mean the expert should try to offer the whole truth
and not a misleading part of the truth to the degree
that the attorneys and the court will permit? Or is it
enough to present only that part of the truth that will
help the case and rely on good cross-examination
(which may not happen especially if the case is settled
before trial) to bring out the rest of the truth? Or
should some portions of the truth that may lead to
709
conclusions contrary to the expert’s opinion be presented solely as a tactical maneuver to make a preemptive strike so that those aspects can be debunked
before the other side has a chance to present them?
Should a forensic scientist try to participate in the
legal system only in ways that further justice or
should the forensic scientist solely answer the questions asked and trust the adversarial system to usually
achieve justice? The adversarial approach exists in
those countries like the United States that base their
system on English common law. Should forensic
scientists lend their expertise to sides trying to achieve
an ‘unjust’ outcome? Is it presumptuous for forensic
scientists to try to further only what they see as justice
or what is consistent with their professional scientific
or personal values? Answers to these questions presently lack a consensus and a resolution does not seem
likely in the foreseeable future.
Foundations of Ethics
Are ethical guidelines arbitrary rules, or are they
based on something more basic and fundamental?
Ethical codes address ‘important’ issues, and seem to
represent more than codes of conduct or codes of
etiquette. Sometimes codes confuse etiquette (such as
not criticizing another scientist or professional or not
hurting an organization) with fundamental ethical
issues. There are questions whether any ethical truth
is objectively right or wrong, or whether all ethics is
subjective and one code is as good as another. Some,
who view ethics as subjective, see it as solely dependent on the mores of a specific culture or scientific
discipline. They believe that what is considered ethical is only what feels morally right to individuals in
that culture or group.
Some consider that the only foundation for ethics
and morals is religion. However, religion itself lacks
objectivity not only within the confines of a single
religion, but also because there would be no consensus as to which of many different religions should be
the standard bearer. Some religions in the past have
advocated human sacrifice. Did that make it ‘right’
for them? There is a long tradition of secular ethics
independent of religion in western democratic countries. Although religion can be a basis for ethics, many
religiously observant people can be unethical and do
‘wrong’ things despite engaging in religious practice.
Atheists can be very ethical and committed to philosophical study to determine what is ‘right’. Although
religion can undoubtedly motivate many people to do
what is ‘right’, by no means is religion a necessary
foundation for ethics and morals.
Two primary schools of thought exist regarding the
basis for ethics. One is consequentialist and proposes
ETHICS
that the ethical thing is whatever leads to the best
consequences, such as the most good or happiness for
the most people. A subset of this position is utilitarianism, insofar as what is most useful is ethical. Another school is deontological and bases ethics on an
intrinsic duty. Actions are intrinsically right or wrong
regardless of consequences. An example of the latter is
the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative — to do what you believe any ethical person in your
position should do, such that the maxim you are
following should be a universal principle for all to
follow.
There can be problems with following any of these
positions too rigidly. You might consider justice an
intrinsic deontological duty, much as Kant did. Does
that mean though that every crime no matter how
small should be investigated until the perpetrator is
punished? It takes consequentialist considerations to
balance this duty with the desirability of spending
government money on other things that might be
more important for society’s welfare. Investigating
every crime thoroughly until the criminal is caught
would use up all our society’s resources. No funds
would be left for other desirable purposes. Additionally, if deontological considerations were primary,
two deontological duties might conflict without any
principle to resolve the conflict.
Similarly, following only consequentialist considerations results in problems. For example, it might
decrease crime in society if it were perceived that every
criminal was always swiftly caught and punished and
no criminal ever got away with a crime. To achieve
this end it might help to choose individuals from an
unpopular group such as prior offenders, try them in
secret, find them guilty, and execute them quickly and
publicly. Such a procedure might in fact have some
deterrent value and decrease crime especially if it were
used for white-collar crimes like embezzling money or
income tax fraud. However, deontological considerations of justice convince us that there is something
wrong with this procedure. There are even contrary
consequentialist considerations. Government would
become very powerful, and any of us could be arbitrarily tried, convicted, and executed even if we were
innocent. All of us would be at potential risk. Thus, a
purely consequentialist foundation for ethics would
also provide no way to decide between these competing consequences to determine the right action.
The best approach requires a consideration of both
types of ethical foundations, but there is no higher
order rule to help us in balancing these considerations. The theoretical approach to resolving ethical
dilemmas essentially uses universal ethical principles
as ‘axioms’ from which particular ethical judgments
are deduced as ‘theorems’. A solution to a problem in
710
a particular case is deduced from the ethical principle.
However, there usually is no higher order ethical rule
or principle to help us decide among competing
ethical principles.
In contrast, the practical approach, known philosophically as ‘casuistry’, does not involve universal
theoretical principles and rules but requires us to consider the issues from the perspective of a particular
case. General ethical principles and rules essentially
are ‘maxims’ that can be fully understood only in
terms of paradigmatic cases that define their meaning
and force. However, there can be and often are differences of opinion about which facets of a case should be
overriding, with no ethical guidance to help us in
weighing and balancing competing ethical maxims.
In both instances, deontological and consequential
considerations can assist us in determining what is
‘right’. However, when ethical rules and principles
conflict, there generally is no rule, principle, or
maxim to help us resolve the conflict. Therefore, it
is essential that forensic scientists are able and prepared to think through and resolve ethical dilemmas
themselves. In difficult situations, more than one
solution usually should be considered acceptable,
and ethics committees should not place sanctions on
forensic scientists for following either course. In order
to help reach the ‘best’ solution in such cases, consultation should often be obtained from experienced
forensic scientists knowledgeable about ethics issues.
Ethical Dilemmas
Ethical dilemmas often defy consensus solutions.
When ethical responsibilities conflict, some forensic
scientists always give the legal needs priority. The
majority, however, usually give the legal needs
priority, but make exceptions if the law desires an
action that violates serious aspects of the values and
ethics of their own scientific discipline or profession.
In such situations, their professional or scientific
values, ethics, and responsibilities may outweigh the
desires of the legal system, and preclude their involvement in that aspect of a legal case. Personal ethics and
morals can also preclude such involvement. Although
the legal system can establish legal ethics, only scientific, professional, and forensic science disciplines and
organizations can establish forensic science ethics.
The law cannot determine what is ethical in forensic
science; it only can determine what is legal.
Ethical dilemmas occur when there are conflicting
ethical duties. An example of such a conflict occurs in
forensic psychiatry, in circumstances in which a practitioner might sometimes believe that the most accurate and truthful assessment would be attained by
misleading the person being evaluated. Such deception
ETHICS
is often legal, but it violates forensic psychiatric ethics
as promulgated by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Most forensic psychiatrists follow
the guideline of the forensic psychiatric profession
regardless of the frequent legality of such deception.
In another instance, many consider the presentation of
aggravating circumstances in a death penalty phase of
a trial a violation of medical ethics, even if such
aggravating circumstances are true and such testimony in the United States violates no current ethical
requirement. The same is true if individuals incompetent to be executed are treated to make them competent. These problems occur when medical or
psychological skills are used to evaluate an individual
for forensic purposes.
The specter of ethical conflict, however, is by no
means limited to forensic psychiatry and psychology
or other branches of forensic medicine, but it occurs
in all forensic sciences. The use of DNA evidence in
the courtroom, although seemingly based on sophisticated modern scientific techniques, with unusually
high levels of reliability and certainty, is another
example of a highly controversial area. Problems in
other aspects such as data collection can be questioned. In many ways it seems counterintuitive that
there can be such divergence in professional opinions
when accurate data such as DNA evidence are introduced. Nonetheless, controversy does exist about the
interpretation of DNA data among highly respected
forensic scientists, such as in the widely publicized
criminal trial of O.J. Simpson. Does that necessarily
mean that one side is unethical or is it possible for
honest forensic scientists to hold strong opposing
views? One possible explanation is that the highly
accurate nature of DNA evidence has made many
problems more significant. Potential ethical and data
collection problems that had been readily ignored
when identification methods were less accurate suddenly have begun to loom in importance. Many such
controversies exist in all forensic science disciplines.
Conclusion
Although the ethical course of action is clear in the
majority of situations, it is essential for the ‘good’
forensic scientist to be knowledgeable about ethics
in order to be able to resolve ethical dilemmas when
difficult situations arise. It is essential to know the
minimal requirements in a Code of Ethics in order
to stay out of trouble and avoid sanctions. However, such Codes do not and cannot address all
contingencies since differing requirements as well
as aspirational standards may conflict. Generally,
there is no higher order rule telling us how to resolve
such a conflict. In such instances, sometimes with
711
knowledgeable help, forensic scientists must work
out their own ethical solutions. Such dilemmas are
likely to occur when different disciplines with differing ethics and values intersect, like science and
law, in forensic science practice.
Various organizations address different issues in
their codes. Two minimal standards for forensic
scientists are the need to be clear and truthful, and
not to distort credentials and data. However, the
good forensic scientist should strive for more than
only staying out of trouble and meeting minimum
standards. ‘Good’ forensic scientists should strive for
excellence both in their ethics and in their forensic
science work.
Ethical complexity in the forensic sciences is not a
reason to avoid forensic practice. Forensic scientists
should accept the challenge, but should be prepared
to confront and assess potential ethical conflicts.
Myriad problems beset all disciplines, especially
those that interface with two very different disciplines
like science and law. Forensic science is an interesting,
stimulating, and productive vital occupation, but it is
necessary to become informed about as many facets
as possible in order to become a good ethical practitioner. In most cases, despite the potential ethical
dilemmas that have been enumerated, the forensic
science Codes of Ethics provide the required minimal
ethics solutions. Those wishing to be good forensic
science practitioners who strive for excellence, generally can find guidance in standards of good forensic
practice. It is only in relatively rare cases that ethical
standards conflict or there are conflicts between
provisions in the standards of good forensic practice.
In such instances, forensic scientists should be prepared, perhaps with consultation, to perform their
own ethical analyses.
See also: Basic Principles of Forensic Science. Legal
Aspects of Forensic Science.
Further Reading
AAFS Committee on Good Forensic Practice (1999)
Advisory opinion. Academy News 20:24.
American Academy of Forensic Sciences (1998) Code of
Ethics and Conduct. Colorado Springs: American
Academy of Forensic Sciences.
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (1998)
Ethical Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychia
try. Bloomfield, CT: American Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law.
Appelbaum PS (1997) A theory of ethics in forensic
psychiatry.
Bulletin of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law 25:233—247.
Beauchamp TL (1982) Philosophical Ethics: An Introduc
tion to Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill.
712
EVIDENCE/Classification
Beauchamp TL and Childress JF (1994) Principles of
Biomedical Ethics, 4th edn. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Callahan JC (1988) Ethical Issues in Professional Life.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Code of Ethics for the Academy Editorial (1986) Journal of
Forensic Science 31:798—799.
Diamond BL (1992) The forensic psychiatrist: consultant
vs. activist in legal doctrine. Bulletin of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 20:119—132.
Diamond BL (1994) The fallacy of the impartial expert. In:
Quen J (ed.) Selected Papers of Bernard L. Diamond.
Hillside, NJ: Analytic Press.
Dyer AR (1988) Ethics and Psychiatry. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
Hundert EM (1987) A model for ethical problem solving in
medicine with practical applications. American Journal
of Psychiatry 144:839—846.
Jasinoff S (1995) Science at the Bar: Law Science and Technology in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jonsen AR and Toulman S (1988) The Abuse of Casuistry.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Katz J (1992) ‘The fallacy of the impartial expert’ revisited.
Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the
Law 23:141—152.
Mills DH (1997) Comments from the perspective of the
AAFS ethics committee. Journal of Forensic Science
42:1207—1208.
1) A) How ethical requirement impact the daily
work of a forensic scientist.
Organizations like the American Academy
of Foren- sic Sciences have developed a
Code of Ethics and Conduct that the
organization enforces. The Ethics Code
states that members ‘shall refrain from
providing
any
material
misrepresentation of education, training,
experience or area of expertise’. It
also requires members to ‘refrain from
providing any misrepresentation of data
upon which an expert opin- ion or
conclusion is based’. Additional provisions
are part of the Code of Conduct. They
are designed to prevent members from
falsely claiming
to represent an
organization and from engaging in
conduct ad- verse to the best interests
and purposes of the organi- zation. Such
transgressions of a Code of Conduct may
violate the rules of the organization
but may not represent violations of
fundamental forensic scientific ethics.
Murphy J and Coleman JL (1990) Philosophy of Law:
An Introduction to Jurisprudence (revised edition).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press Co.
Nordby JJ (1997) A member of the Roy Rogers Riders
Club is expected to follow the rules. Journal of Forensic
Science 42:1195—1197.
Rachels J (1993) The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 2nd
edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rosner R (1994) Principles and Practice of Forensic
Psychiatry. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Rosner R (1997) Foundations of ethical practice in the
forensic sciences. Journal of Forensic Science 42:1191—
1194.
Rosner R and Weinstock R (1990) Ethical Practice in
Psychiatry and the Law. New York: Plenum Press. Stone
AA (1984) Law, Psychiatry and Morality. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Weinstock R, Leong GB and Silva JA (1991) Opinions
expressed by AAPL forensic psychiatrists on controversial ethical guidelines: a survey. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 19:237—248.
Erratum 19:393.
Weinstock R (1997) Ethical practice in the forensic
sciences — an introduction. Journal of Forensic Science
42:1189—1190.
Weinstock R (1998) Letter to the editor. Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 26:151—
155.
The Code of Ethics and Conduct also has
provisions
describing
due
process
procedures.
It is important to write ethics provisions
clearly in order to prevent ambiguity that
could
result
in
an ethics hearing
degenerating into a popularity contest. For
example, in the absence of clear guidelines,
there is a danger that a verdict could
primarily become dependent on whether a
hearing panel likes an ac- cused individual,
whether the accused person’s views on a
controversial issue are popular, or whether
the accused is part of the ‘in’ group. As a
result, the actual seriousness of the ethics
offense would become much less relevant,
with less effort expended towards determining exactly what happened and for what
reason, thus obscuring the stated goal of the
hearing.
If there are sections of the Code that
potentially are unclear to a reader, clarifying
interpretations should be disseminated to
the
organization’s membership. It
is
essential for members to have information
in advance about the specific types of
713
EVIDENCE/Classification
conduct that are prohibited (minimal
standards), with a clear distinc- tion from
those that are encouraged (aspirational
standards). If there is any potential
ambiguity, a way must be found to
provide the necessary clarifi- cation. One
possible means is to print an explanation
of the issue in the organization’s
newsletter.
b)Explain
the
importance
of
professional
ethics
to
science
practitioners.
Aspirational standards are standards of
good practice or even excellence. Good
forensic practitioners should strive to
attain these standards despite the fact
that only minimal basic ethical standards
are subject to enforcement. The American
Academy of Forensic Sciences’ Committee
on Good Forensic Practice has developed
the following Standards for Good Forensic
Practice.
1.
Forensic scientists generally should
follow the standards of their respective
disciplines. They should apply with care any
assessment methods, technical
skills,
scientific and other areas of specialized
knowledge, to legal issues and questions.
They should always strive to do high
quality work.
2.
Forensic scientists should strive to
keep current and maintain competence
in their scientific disciplines.
Although
competence
at minimum should be a
goal, forensic scientists should strive for
excellence.
3.
Forensic
scientists
should
demonstrate honesty and should strive
for objectivity, by examining scientific
questions from all reasonable perspectives
and by actively seeking all relevant obtainable data that could distinguish between
plausible alternative possibilities.
4. Forensic scientists should strive to be
free from any conflicts of interest. They
should possess an independence that would
protect
their
objectivity. Any potential
conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
Work on relevant cases should be avoided
or discontinued if objectivity may be
compromised.
5.
Forensic scientists should undertake
cases and give opinions only in their areas of
expertise, attained through
education,
training and experience.
6. Forensic scientists should attempt to
identify, deter and help eliminate unethical
behavior by other forensic scientists through
methods such as discussion with a colleague,
education, and if unsuccessful, by filing an
ethics complaint.
7.
It is essential to recognize that honest
differences of opinion exist and do not
imply unethical behavior by either expert. The
legal adversary system includes opposing
attorneys seeking out experts with favorable
opinions. Forensic scientists should not be
blamed unfairly for unpopular verdicts, honest
differences of opinion, or the vagaries of the
legal system.
8. Passions against an opposing disagreeing
expert, or personal animosity, should not
constitute the basis for an ethics complaint.
9. Forensic scientists should present their
opinions to the trier of fact in concise
understandable language, but care must
be taken since such efforts can result in
oversimplification and
loss of some
precision. In their efforts to communicate
effectively, forensic scientists should strive to
be as accurate as possible and avoid
distortion. Every reasonable effort should be
made to ensure that others (including
attorneys) do not distort the forensic
scientist’s opinions.
10. Forensic scientists should strive to
instill the highest ethical and scientific
standards in their students and colleagues
through
such means
as teaching,
supervision, setting a good example,
publications, and presentations at meetings.
11. Forensic scientists should strive for
714
EVIDENCE/Classification
excellence
and the highest degree of integrity.
Forensic opinions should not be based
on
undisciplined bias, personal
advantage, or a desire to please an
employer or an attorney.
12. When forensic scientists are asked to
express opinions on a legal issue, they
should
make every effort to become
familiar with the applicable legal criteria
in the pertinent jurisdiction. They
should take care to reach only those
legal conclusions that result from proper
application of the data to that legal
issue.
13. Unlike attorneys, forensic scientists
are not ad- versaries. They take an oath
in court to tell the whole truth. They
should make every effort to uphold that
oath.
14. When a forensic scientist accepts
any privileged
information from an attorney, care
should be taken to ensure that all such
information is kept confidential and
does not reach the opposing side. After
accepting
such information, forensic
scientists should not provide their services
to the opposing side unless legally ordered
to do so. Forensic scientists should alert
attorneys not to make payment
or
provide privileged informa- tion, if they
wish to retain the option to be
employed by the opposing side.