Editor’s Note: You can read more Jami Floyd blogs on “In Session.”

Jami Floyd
AC360° contributor and In Session anchor

We hear from our friends at the Innocence Project that a big report is coming down on forensic science. Apparently, the National Academy of Sciences has spent the last two years studying the use of forensics in criminal cases. Their conclusion: Forensic evidence presented in court is often based on shoddy science practices in the lab.

That includes fingerprinting, ballistics, blood spatter and bite marks, hair and handwriting analysis, all of which have been used to convict thousands of defendants for the better part of the last hundred years.

It is worth noting that the National Academy of Sciences is the country’s top scientific research group. So forget what you’ve seen on CSI. In reality, forensic science is not foolproof. In my view, forensics suffers, most fundamentally, from a lack of independence. After all, this branch of “science” was developed by police and prosecutors to close cases. The inherent bias is compounded by poorly trained technicians who exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in court.

Bottom line: We are convicting people in this country based on outdated and/or untested theories presented by analysts who very often have no background in science or statistics. But there is a simple solution: Oversight.

Congress should establish a federal agency to guarantee accuracy and independence. As the forthcoming report concludes, such oversight is the only way to promote universal standards in a branch of science that incorporates anthropology, biology, chemistry, medicine, physics and the law. I hope our lawmakers will take notice. They all talk a good game of believe in our constitutional system of justice. Let’s see them take this important step to protect it.