False Beliefs In Forensic Science

Pseudo-science supports false beliefs that convict the innocent (economics and the poor), or the best justice system you can buy
Introduction
Pseudo-science is a belief, claim, or practice that is usually presented a scientific belief, practice or claim but in the real sense does not adhere to the scientific methods. According to Bell, Suzanne, Barry, and Robert, (2008); any practice or body of knowledge can be classified as pseudoscientific when it is presented using the norms of scientific research but fails to meet the norms. In the policing department, in the event of criminal activity taking place, the forensic team plays the role of investigating the scene of the crime for the purpose of providing found evidence to the court of law during
The most common strategy that forensic science experts uses is that fingerprints, bite mark and ballistics for the purpose of determining the real perpetrators of the crime. The reason is that when a person is involved in an offence and touches any of the items around the scene of the offence, the person's fingerprints are reflected on the item. Hence, the forensic team has a strategy of getting the fingerprints from all items found at the scene of crime regardless of the number of people that touched anything around the area. The most unfortunate thing is that the entire fingerprint-collecting process appears to be scientific in nature as it has a process that it is used to obtain the fingerprints. However, the process has over the time proved that the process is not entirely scientific a thing that has made the process to appear pseudoscientific. The reason is that a lot of biases have been noted to be emanating from the fingerprint process. A lot of inconsistencies, contradictory, and claims that the forensic team cannot prove has been
According to the Academy, different forensic methods are filled with assumptions because the lack of scrutiny has denied the methods chances to prove that the methods are not scientifically correct and accurate hence no change to improve them to perfection. As a result, similar errors continue being repeated over and over again (Turvey, 2012). For example, in a different case where a child was murder and dumped near a river, a man who was a bar attendant was accused of having been the perpetrator. According to the forensic team, a bite mark proved that the waiter (Brook) was the person who had bitten the child to death a thing that led to Brook's life incarceration (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/real-csi/). Only years later when Brook was in prison that a similar case happened, again and again, another innocent person who was the child's stepfather was determined by Bite Marks test to be the perpetrator a thing that scientists and experts consider as invalid science. Such forensic methods are considered invalid due to lack of eye witnesses, valid objects that can be used or any other tangible evidence. Unfortunately, intangible evidence like the conduct of a person or any awful smell that the expert would assume is a scent of a particular crime hence automatically concluded that the individual was involved and upon making