|
|
Rank: Senior Student  Joined: 3/14/2011 Posts: 71
|
The law community is all over the spectrum when it comes to the use of forensic science. I very recently got my paper back on the subject, so I'd be interested in what you all have to say. To what extent is forensic science the great equalizer in the fight against crime? Applied to
University of British Columbia - Science AcceptedUniversity of British Columbia - Arts AcceptedSimon Fraser University - General Science AcceptedSimon Fraser University - Biological Sciences Accepted 
|
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 539
|
However much the law allows it to be utilized. It's more objective than witness testimony, so hey, at least we're getting somewhere right?!
|
|
|
Rank: Senior Student Joined: 3/14/2011 Posts: 71
|
SUMmer123456 wrote:However much the law allows it to be utilized. It's more objective than witness testimony, so hey, at least we're getting somewhere right?! I'm going to quote my paper "In 2005, their National Academy of Science was charged by Congress with the task of evaluating the utilization of forensic science in the United States. It was reported that they found “serious deficiencies” and “recommended extensive reforms”. Except in the case of DNA analysis (which only constituted 10% of forensic science cases) no other single forensic discipline could be proven with “a high degree of certainty” to match evidence with a suspect. This raises reasonable doubt in some aspects of forensic science. Evidence of this was displayed a year later at the University of Southampton. Two out of six veteran fingerprint examiners were unable to reach the same conclusion on fingerprints which they had previously and unknowingly examined. As for the cases displaying questionable aspects of forensic science, at the State vs. Brown [1992] N.Y. (New York, U.S.) trial, Brown was convicted on the basis of “expert testimony” on odontology for the murder of a young woman. Brown was later exonerated 15 years later by DNA evidence." Objectivity doesn't matter when the discipline being used is questionable, thus raising a reasonable doubt (if forensic evidence is all that is present) which means that a not guilty verdict must be given. In the Brown case, the forensic evidence must be explained to the jury, so you have testimony regardless. Applied to
University of British Columbia - Science AcceptedUniversity of British Columbia - Arts AcceptedSimon Fraser University - General Science AcceptedSimon Fraser University - Biological Sciences Accepted
|
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 539
|
KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:However much the law allows it to be utilized. It's more objective than witness testimony, so hey, at least we're getting somewhere right?! I'm going to quote my paper "In 2005, their National Academy of Science was charged by Congress with the task of evaluating the utilization of forensic science in the United States. It was reported that they found “serious deficiencies” and “recommended extensive reforms”. Except in the case of DNA analysis (which only constituted 10% of forensic science cases) no other single forensic discipline could be proven with “a high degree of certainty” to match evidence with a suspect. This raises reasonable doubt in some aspects of forensic science. Evidence of this was displayed a year later at the University of Southampton. Two out of six veteran fingerprint examiners were unable to reach the same conclusion on fingerprints which they had previously and unknowingly examined. As for the cases displaying questionable aspects of forensic science, at the State vs. Brown [1992] N.Y. (New York, U.S.) trial, Brown was convicted on the basis of “expert testimony” on odontology for the murder of a young woman. Brown was later exonerated 15 years later by DNA evidence." Objectivity doesn't matter when the discipline being used is questionable, thus raising a reasonable doubt (if forensic evidence is all that is present) which means that a not guilty verdict must be given. In the Brown case, the forensic evidence must be explained to the jury, so you have testimony regardless. You usually don't base your decision on one piece of evidence, in any case. Every discipline is questionable; it really depends on what you're looking for (there are both arguments in favour of and against pretty much everything known to man). Obviously a lot of factors need to come together for a judge to make a decision (for criminal trials, the defendant has a pretty steep onus). It's a growing field, and in the long-run it definitely will lead to better decisions. All sciences are like this at the nursery stages of development, so to speak, and forensic science is still very much growing. You do have testimony, but it is based more on something that can be shown. It's definitely the great equalizer in the sense that when there is little else to go on it may help lead to some interesting discoveries. I will concede one point though: what you said could be a valid defence if you are accused of a crime in which the only piece of evidence stacked against you is forensic. I imagine it would open up a Pandora's box of issues that may divert attention from the crime itself...but I'm getting ahead of myself.
|
|
|
Rank: Senior Student Joined: 3/14/2011 Posts: 71
|
SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
You usually don't base your decision on one piece of evidence, in any case. Every discipline is questionable; it really depends on what you're looking for (there are both arguments in favour of and against pretty much everything known to man). Obviously a lot of factors need to come together for a judge to make a decision (for criminal trials, the defendant has a pretty steep onus). It's a growing field, and in the long-run it definitely will lead to better decisions. All sciences are like this at the nursery stages of development, so to speak, and forensic science is still very much growing.
You do have testimony, but it is based more on something that can be shown. It's definitely the great equalizer in the sense that when there is little else to go on it may help lead to some interesting discoveries. I will concede one point though: what you said could be a valid defence if you are accused of a crime in which the only piece of evidence stacked against you is forensic. I imagine it would open up a Pandora's box of issues that may divert attention from the crime itself...but I'm getting ahead of myself. I typed a nice long response and studentawards signed me out...sigh I'll try and type it back In my essay I talked about convictions in which forensic evidence was the sole factor in the conviction, and an innocent was put away. "State vs. Brown [1992] N.Y. (New York, U.S.) trial, Brown was convicted on the basis of “expert testimony” on odontology for the murder of a young woman. Brown was later exonerated 15 years later by DNA evidence." What happened was a woman was murdered, and bit marks were left on her. An odontologist testified with absolute certainty that the bite marks belonged to Brown. This put him away for murder and on death row (I believe). I believe that forensic evidence is important, but it is part of a delicate balancing act that must be present in order to secure a guilty verdict. Other factors - the competency of the crown, charge to the jury and evidence must be strong enough for a conviction. Other factors that forensic science cannot stop, are a hung jury, pleading a defence, or the juries inability to understand the forensic evidence. I cited the Simpson case, in which while the forensic evidence was undeniable, a bias jury and inability to understand the forensic evidence (DNA testing was relatively new at the time) led to a not guilty verdict. Additionally, if the defence themselves have a witness to testify against the forensic evidence of the Crown, then effectively in the juries' mind, both of them cancel each other out. Forensic evidence is good, but I don't believe it is an equalizer. It is merely a piece of a puzzle in which all pieces must be present in order to secure a guilty verdict. Applied to
University of British Columbia - Science AcceptedUniversity of British Columbia - Arts AcceptedSimon Fraser University - General Science AcceptedSimon Fraser University - Biological Sciences Accepted
|
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 539
|
KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
You usually don't base your decision on one piece of evidence, in any case. Every discipline is questionable; it really depends on what you're looking for (there are both arguments in favour of and against pretty much everything known to man). Obviously a lot of factors need to come together for a judge to make a decision (for criminal trials, the defendant has a pretty steep onus). It's a growing field, and in the long-run it definitely will lead to better decisions. All sciences are like this at the nursery stages of development, so to speak, and forensic science is still very much growing.
You do have testimony, but it is based more on something that can be shown. It's definitely the great equalizer in the sense that when there is little else to go on it may help lead to some interesting discoveries. I will concede one point though: what you said could be a valid defence if you are accused of a crime in which the only piece of evidence stacked against you is forensic. I imagine it would open up a Pandora's box of issues that may divert attention from the crime itself...but I'm getting ahead of myself. I typed a nice long response and studentawards signed me out...sigh I'll try and type it back In my essay I talked about convictions in which forensic evidence was the sole factor in the conviction, and an innocent was put away. "State vs. Brown [1992] N.Y. (New York, U.S.) trial, Brown was convicted on the basis of “expert testimony” on odontology for the murder of a young woman. Brown was later exonerated 15 years later by DNA evidence." What happened was a woman was murdered, and bit marks were left on her. An odontologist testified with absolute certainty that the bite marks belonged to Brown. This put him away for murder and on death row (I believe). I believe that forensic evidence is important, but it is part of a delicate balancing act that must be present in order to secure a guilty verdict. Other factors - the competency of the crown, charge to the jury and evidence must be strong enough for a conviction. Other factors that forensic science cannot stop, are a hung jury, pleading a defence, or the juries inability to understand the forensic evidence. I cited the Simpson case, in which while the forensic evidence was undeniable, a bias jury and inability to understand the forensic evidence (DNA testing was relatively new at the time) led to a not guilty verdict. Additionally, if the defence themselves have a witness to testify against the forensic evidence of the Crown, then effectively in the juries' mind, both of them cancel each other out. Forensic evidence is good, but I don't believe it is an equalizer. It is merely a piece of a puzzle in which all pieces must be present in order to secure a guilty verdict. You pretty much said what I said from a different perspective. I moved from favour to open, while your transition is more from against to relatively open; in terms of opinion. I agree with much of what you said. Frankly, I'm not fond of argument for argument's sake so I will concede what I agree on (even if it's from a different perspective). By equalizer, I'm referring to its objectivity. You don't have human emotions/judgments clouding the conclusions reached with regards to forensic evidence. It's not infallible, but what is? Juries should be utilized carefully. Sometimes judges that specialize in certain areas of the law will arrive at much more equitable decisions than juries (I mean they're just laymen). This is also probably a big reason why juries are utilized less frequently in Canada than in the US. It is a piece of the puzzle, but a pretty significant one. I'm not saying that it should be all-encompassing, but it should definitely be regarded highly. This is pretty much what you said, so there isn't a divergence of opinion. Also, people have also been wrongfully indicted when other types of evidence has been involved...and don't forget, forensic evidence was used to exonerate him (that's an equalizer if I ever saw one).
|
|
|
Rank: Senior Student Joined: 3/14/2011 Posts: 71
|
SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
You pretty much said what I said from a different perspective. I moved from favour to open, while your transition is more from against to relatively open; in terms of opinion. I agree with much of what you said. Frankly, I'm not fond of argument for argument's sake so I will concede what I agree on (even if it's from a different perspective).
By equalizer, I'm referring to its objectivity. You don't have human emotions/judgments clouding the conclusions reached with regards to forensic evidence. It's not infallible, but what is? Juries should be utilized carefully. Sometimes judges that specialize in certain areas of the law will arrive at much more equitable decisions than juries (I mean they're just laymen). This is also probably a big reason why juries are utilized less frequently in Canada than in the US. It is a piece of the puzzle, but a pretty significant one. I'm not saying that it should be all-encompassing, but it should definitely be regarded highly. This is pretty much what you said, so there isn't a divergence of opinion. Also, people have also been wrongfully indicted when other types of evidence has been involved...and don't forget, forensic evidence was used to exonerate him (that's an equalizer if I ever saw one).
I just guess our definitions of equalizer are different. I don't believe that it is a great equalizer because other things are just as important as forensic evidence in a conviction (in my opinion). A great equalizer in my eyes would be something indisputable and infallible (which I don't see how could exist). He and many others still spent many years in prison which he will never have back. (He was convicted with questionable forensic evidence and exonerated with DNA, which the NSA found to be reliable). My teacher brought up an interesting thought. It's due to the nature of the thing, but it's still interesting. The police get their (I don't know how much to be honest) of their evidence from private crime labs. It is a business partnership. The crime labs make money for providing results. There is a lot more incentive to find a match than not to find a match. I wouldn't go so far as to say they purposely fudge results, but the incentive makes it a lot easier to find favourable results than to find unfavourable ones. I wouldn't be surprised to find that results happened to turn to be a lot more favourable to the crown than defence. I could see how one could argue that it isn't totally objective. This is pure speculation, of course. Applied to
University of British Columbia - Science AcceptedUniversity of British Columbia - Arts AcceptedSimon Fraser University - General Science AcceptedSimon Fraser University - Biological Sciences Accepted
|
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 539
|
KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
You pretty much said what I said from a different perspective. I moved from favour to open, while your transition is more from against to relatively open; in terms of opinion. I agree with much of what you said. Frankly, I'm not fond of argument for argument's sake so I will concede what I agree on (even if it's from a different perspective).
By equalizer, I'm referring to its objectivity. You don't have human emotions/judgments clouding the conclusions reached with regards to forensic evidence. It's not infallible, but what is? Juries should be utilized carefully. Sometimes judges that specialize in certain areas of the law will arrive at much more equitable decisions than juries (I mean they're just laymen). This is also probably a big reason why juries are utilized less frequently in Canada than in the US. It is a piece of the puzzle, but a pretty significant one. I'm not saying that it should be all-encompassing, but it should definitely be regarded highly. This is pretty much what you said, so there isn't a divergence of opinion. Also, people have also been wrongfully indicted when other types of evidence has been involved...and don't forget, forensic evidence was used to exonerate him (that's an equalizer if I ever saw one).
I just guess our definitions of equalizer are different. I don't believe that it is a great equalizer because other things are just as important as forensic evidence in a conviction (in my opinion). A great equalizer in my eyes would be something indisputable and infallible (which I don't see how could exist). He and many others still spent many years in prison which he will never have back. (He was convicted with questionable forensic evidence and exonerated with DNA, which the NSA found to be reliable). My teacher brought up an interesting thought. It's due to the nature of the thing, but it's still interesting. The police get their (I don't know how much to be honest) of their evidence from private crime labs. It is a business partnership. The crime labs make money for providing results. There is a lot more incentive to find a match than not to find a match. I wouldn't be surprised to find that results happened to turn to be a lot more favourable to the crown than defence. I could see how one could argue that it isn't totally objective. This is pure speculation, of course. Then the whole argument is pointless. Based on your definition, nothing is an equalizer (and this is not to say that your definition is inaccurate; given that framework, I have the same conclusion as you). Well, if there is, in fact, an incentive of this type, then the system is at fault; not forensic evidence on its own per se. It's not totally objective (nothing is for that matter; everything is built upon a subjective framework of beliefs that are "generally" accepted). It is more objective than many other types of evidence though, and I'm sure you'll agree with this. There really are no absolutes here, and I want to clarify that my position is, in fact, a liberal one.
|
|
|
Rank: Senior Student Joined: 3/14/2011 Posts: 71
|
SUMmer123456 wrote:KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
You pretty much said what I said from a different perspective. I moved from favour to open, while your transition is more from against to relatively open; in terms of opinion. I agree with much of what you said. Frankly, I'm not fond of argument for argument's sake so I will concede what I agree on (even if it's from a different perspective).
By equalizer, I'm referring to its objectivity. You don't have human emotions/judgments clouding the conclusions reached with regards to forensic evidence. It's not infallible, but what is? Juries should be utilized carefully. Sometimes judges that specialize in certain areas of the law will arrive at much more equitable decisions than juries (I mean they're just laymen). This is also probably a big reason why juries are utilized less frequently in Canada than in the US. It is a piece of the puzzle, but a pretty significant one. I'm not saying that it should be all-encompassing, but it should definitely be regarded highly. This is pretty much what you said, so there isn't a divergence of opinion. Also, people have also been wrongfully indicted when other types of evidence has been involved...and don't forget, forensic evidence was used to exonerate him (that's an equalizer if I ever saw one).
I just guess our definitions of equalizer are different. I don't believe that it is a great equalizer because other things are just as important as forensic evidence in a conviction (in my opinion). A great equalizer in my eyes would be something indisputable and infallible (which I don't see how could exist). He and many others still spent many years in prison which he will never have back. (He was convicted with questionable forensic evidence and exonerated with DNA, which the NSA found to be reliable). My teacher brought up an interesting thought. It's due to the nature of the thing, but it's still interesting. The police get their (I don't know how much to be honest) of their evidence from private crime labs. It is a business partnership. The crime labs make money for providing results. There is a lot more incentive to find a match than not to find a match. I wouldn't be surprised to find that results happened to turn to be a lot more favourable to the crown than defence. I could see how one could argue that it isn't totally objective. This is pure speculation, of course. Then the whole argument is pointless. Based on your definition, nothing is an equalizer (and this is not to say that your definition is inaccurate; given that framework, I have the same conclusion as you). Well, if there is, in fact, an incentive of this type, then the system is at fault; not forensic evidence on its own per se. It's not totally objective (nothing is for that matter; everything is built upon a subjective framework of beliefs that are "generally" accepted). It is more objective than many other types of evidence though, and I'm sure you'll agree with this. There really are no absolutes here, and I want to clarify that my position is, in fact, a liberal one. We were arguing? I thought we were just discussing our opinions on it. Applied to
University of British Columbia - Science AcceptedUniversity of British Columbia - Arts AcceptedSimon Fraser University - General Science AcceptedSimon Fraser University - Biological Sciences Accepted
|
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 539
|
KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
You pretty much said what I said from a different perspective. I moved from favour to open, while your transition is more from against to relatively open; in terms of opinion. I agree with much of what you said. Frankly, I'm not fond of argument for argument's sake so I will concede what I agree on (even if it's from a different perspective).
By equalizer, I'm referring to its objectivity. You don't have human emotions/judgments clouding the conclusions reached with regards to forensic evidence. It's not infallible, but what is? Juries should be utilized carefully. Sometimes judges that specialize in certain areas of the law will arrive at much more equitable decisions than juries (I mean they're just laymen). This is also probably a big reason why juries are utilized less frequently in Canada than in the US. It is a piece of the puzzle, but a pretty significant one. I'm not saying that it should be all-encompassing, but it should definitely be regarded highly. This is pretty much what you said, so there isn't a divergence of opinion. Also, people have also been wrongfully indicted when other types of evidence has been involved...and don't forget, forensic evidence was used to exonerate him (that's an equalizer if I ever saw one).
I just guess our definitions of equalizer are different. I don't believe that it is a great equalizer because other things are just as important as forensic evidence in a conviction (in my opinion). A great equalizer in my eyes would be something indisputable and infallible (which I don't see how could exist). He and many others still spent many years in prison which he will never have back. (He was convicted with questionable forensic evidence and exonerated with DNA, which the NSA found to be reliable). My teacher brought up an interesting thought. It's due to the nature of the thing, but it's still interesting. The police get their (I don't know how much to be honest) of their evidence from private crime labs. It is a business partnership. The crime labs make money for providing results. There is a lot more incentive to find a match than not to find a match. I wouldn't be surprised to find that results happened to turn to be a lot more favourable to the crown than defence. I could see how one could argue that it isn't totally objective. This is pure speculation, of course. Then the whole argument is pointless. Based on your definition, nothing is an equalizer (and this is not to say that your definition is inaccurate; given that framework, I have the same conclusion as you). Well, if there is, in fact, an incentive of this type, then the system is at fault; not forensic evidence on its own per se. It's not totally objective (nothing is for that matter; everything is built upon a subjective framework of beliefs that are "generally" accepted). It is more objective than many other types of evidence though, and I'm sure you'll agree with this. There really are no absolutes here, and I want to clarify that my position is, in fact, a liberal one. We were arguing? I thought we were just discussing our opinions on it. By argument, I meant discussion. Position. Stance. The whole works. I meant that there is no point discussing that on which we agree. I'll leave the floor open to someone who's passionate about a divergent view.
|
|
|
Rank: Senior Student Joined: 3/14/2011 Posts: 71
|
SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
By argument, I meant discussion. Position. Stance. The whole works. I meant that there is no point discussing that on which we agree. I'll leave the floor open to someone who's passionate about a divergent view.
I wouldn't have called that pointless. Even if we have a different definition of it, what does it matter? I don't think you were seriously expecting to change my point or view, because I wasn't expecting to change anyone else's. I have enjoyed talking to you and seeing your opinion on forensic evidence. Just because we have the same essential view doesn't meant that we would entirely agree on everything though. You have brought up some things I haven't thought about. I wouldn't have called this pointless. Applied to
University of British Columbia - Science AcceptedUniversity of British Columbia - Arts AcceptedSimon Fraser University - General Science AcceptedSimon Fraser University - Biological Sciences Accepted
|
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 539
|
KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
By argument, I meant discussion. Position. Stance. The whole works. I meant that there is no point discussing that on which we agree. I'll leave the floor open to someone who's passionate about a divergent view.
I wouldn't have called that pointless. Even if we have a different definition of it, what does it matter? I don't think you were seriously expecting to change my point or view, because I wasn't expecting to change anyone else's. I have enjoyed talking to you and seeing your opinion on forensic evidence. Just because we have the same essential view doesn't meant that we would entirely agree on everything though. You have brought up some things I haven't thought about. I wouldn't have called this pointless. No I wasn't, but I was looking for something valid in your opinion that might change my opinion (and you changed my perspective on some points too). My opinions are just generally not black and white, so I'm not much for changing opinions, anyhow. But divergent opinions are the spice of life (or at least some would say so), so I felt maybe that's what you were looking for with this discussion. I may have been mistaken, and it seems to me that I was. If you enjoyed the discussion and found it at least semi-insightful, then I guess I've done my job :).
|
|
|
Rank: Senior Student Joined: 3/14/2011 Posts: 71
|
SUMmer123456 wrote:KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
By argument, I meant discussion. Position. Stance. The whole works. I meant that there is no point discussing that on which we agree. I'll leave the floor open to someone who's passionate about a divergent view.
I wouldn't have called that pointless. Even if we have a different definition of it, what does it matter? I don't think you were seriously expecting to change my point or view, because I wasn't expecting to change anyone else's. I have enjoyed talking to you and seeing your opinion on forensic evidence. Just because we have the same essential view doesn't meant that we would entirely agree on everything though. You have brought up some things I haven't thought about. I wouldn't have called this pointless. No I wasn't, but I was looking for something valid in your opinion that might change my opinion (and you changed my perspective on some points too). My opinions are just generally not black and white, so I'm not much for changing opinions, anyhow. But divergent opinions are the spice of life (or at least some would say so), so I felt maybe that's what you were looking for with this discussion. I may have been mistaken, and it seems to me that I was. If you enjoyed the discussion and found it at least semi-insightful, then I guess I've done my job :). :D Why isn't anyone else posting in here Yes I'm looking at YOU Applied to
University of British Columbia - Science AcceptedUniversity of British Columbia - Arts AcceptedSimon Fraser University - General Science AcceptedSimon Fraser University - Biological Sciences Accepted
|
|
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Joined: 4/27/2011
Posts: 539
|
KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:KarZ wrote:SUMmer123456 wrote:[quote=KarZ][quote=SUMmer123456]
By argument, I meant discussion. Position. Stance. The whole works. I meant that there is no point discussing that on which we agree. I'll leave the floor open to someone who's passionate about a divergent view.
I wouldn't have called that pointless. Even if we have a different definition of it, what does it matter? I don't think you were seriously expecting to change my point or view, because I wasn't expecting to change anyone else's. I have enjoyed talking to you and seeing your opinion on forensic evidence. Just because we have the same essential view doesn't meant that we would entirely agree on everything though. You have brought up some things I haven't thought about. I wouldn't have called this pointless. No I wasn't, but I was looking for something valid in your opinion that might change my opinion (and you changed my perspective on some points too). My opinions are just generally not black and white, so I'm not much for changing opinions, anyhow. But divergent opinions are the spice of life (or at least some would say so), so I felt maybe that's what you were looking for with this discussion. I may have been mistaken, and it seems to me that I was. If you enjoyed the discussion and found it at least semi-insightful, then I guess I've done my job :). :D Why isn't anyone else posting in here Yes I'm looking at YOU Most likely because it is pretty late. You'll probably get more responses tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Frosh
Joined: 10/5/2011
Posts: 5
|
Forensic science is the application of scientific principles for the investigation of crime. Forensic technician use the latest technologies and enjoy the work as it is associated with lots of adventures. They test traces of blood, saliva, hair, fingerprints, footwear and tyre impressions etc. Though their job is interesting but it is also associated with lots of challenges which result in their rewarding salary. I came across a site which even mentioned about their healthy salary. http://www.forensicsciencetechnician.net/average-salary-for-forensic-science-technicians/So I think forensic science is a wonderful career for those who are tricky, enjoy adventures and wants to earn a good salary.
|
|
|
Rank: Frosh  Joined: 6/13/2011 Posts: 21
|
A good field to go into if you know science 
|
|
|
|
Rank: Student Council
Joined: 12/21/2010
Posts: 320
|
It sounds interesting but I don't know why the word 'science' is attached to the field.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Student Council
Joined: 11/13/2011
Posts: 347
|
|
|
|