Friday, March 8, 2019

Mass Crime Lab Case

Former Massachusetts State Crime Lab chemist, Annie Dookhan, has been indicted on twenty-seven counts of tampering with evidence, perjury, and obstruction of justice after a effectual fallout that has jeopardized thousands of drug cases (Smith). Dookhan admitted to dry- interrogatory groundbing (distinguishing a sample is a narcotic ground on appearance instead of actually testing), altering test bequeaths, and advisedly turned a negative sample into a positive for narcotics a few times. Another focus in which she tampered with the testing samples was by exaggerating the weight of seized drugs in order to cause the accused party to run into harsher penalties.As a result of the chemists actions, many detached people get under ones skin served jail time, while deserving criminals were let bump off the hook. Even though her coworkers and supervisors were suspicious on several occasions end-to-end the course of several years, she was not caught until 2011 when she admitted to forging a colleagues signature on paperwork. It was not until this action, that she was finally suspended from her duties (The Living Case). The succeeding(a) thought that occurs to soulfulness reading this story is Why. What would possess someone to risk his or her job and credentials?It is hard to understand what hardly would motivate Annie Dookhan to commit this type of crime considering that her life was not at a time impacted by the fates of the defendants her samples belonged to. Frederick Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory, also known as the two-factor theory, could be applied in this case. Lab executives leadership style Crime testing grounds would be better served if they were operated privately and contracted by pleads rather than run by a police department. There is cause for concern when a state prosecutor has intrinsic ties to the people testing the evidence he or she needs to convict a felon.It is an absolute conflict of interest to have a crime testing ground under the control of the police. Northeastern University equity professor Daniel Medwed said, There are often implicit pressures on crime lab technicians to help out prosecutors to testify in cases in a way that supports their perceived colleagues in law enforcement (The Living Case). As a result of the outcome of the Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts case, chemists are now required to be present at the trial of the substance they tested in order to be cross-examined on their testimony (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts).Bearing in mind that their testimony carries a lot of weight in a trial, chemists should remain separate so that issues of prejudice or bias arise. Aside from that issue, being run be the state police produces problems in relation to the management of the crime lab reporting any errors in testing that whitethorn occur. The leaders may feel that exposing problems would only increase a backlog of paperwork and further testing as a result of an internal investigation. In t his case, it does not count that the leadership was affected by police involvement as the lab was run by the Department of Public Health during the period of the incidents.Sources * I was unsure how to cite the case given to us as most of my information is derived from there, and I did not see where Kirkman provided source information. * http//www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-591.pdf* http//www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scandal-reverberates-across-state

No comments:

Post a Comment