AN EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY ON LAW

AN EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF FORENSIC TECHNOLOGY ON LAW

AN EXPLORATION OF THE IMPACT OF FORENSIC TECHNOLOGYON LAW ENFORCEMENT IN LOCAL MUNICIPALITIESINFS 890: Decision Support/Knowledge ManagementElmer L. BuardDakota State UniversityFebruary 10, 2016Dr.Jun Liu ABSTRACTDespite the vast research on the value of forensic-sciences-technology contribution in solving complex criminal cases, little is known about the underlying adoption strategy and ethical implications. The overall image that emerges from such literature is largely positive: new forensic sciences technology can enormously enhance the ability to solve complex crimes. This study recovers some of the laboratory management perspectives on the adoption barriers of such technology using the “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) through literary reviews. An analysis of these literary reviews yielded that there were associated ethical implications, aligning to both utilitarianism and contractarianism theoretical views that served as adoption barriers or simply raised ethical concerns. forensic-sciences-technology complicated and sometimes even challenged two widely held assumptions about the value of adoption of forensic sciences technology: (a) the utilitarian viewpoint argues for adoption of such technology determined by the utility or disutility of its expected consequences, thus added value, and (b) contractarianism maintains that the legitimate authority of the government laboratory must derive from the consent of the governed, thus political inference. The different ethical viewpoints add nuance to our understanding of the adoption of forensic technology. This study is part of a growing body of research on both the adoption of forensic sciences technology and associated ethical implications. In using a largely scarce source of literary review on the UTAUT, accompanied by such ethical theories, this paper, will contribute to future research on similar topics Table of ContentsAcknowledgments. vList of Tables. viiiList of Figures. ixCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.. 1Introduction to the Problem.. 1Background of the Study. 3Statement of the Problem.. 6Purpose of the Study. 8Rationale. 9Research Questions. 9Significance of the Study. 10Definition of Terms. 11Assumptions and Limitations. 12Nature of the Study. 14Organization of the Remainder of the Study. 15CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW… 16Introduction. 16Brief Discussion on Forensic Science. 17Potential Impediments to Implementation. 18The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. 21Other Models of Acceptance. 27Support of the Research Design. 30Conceptual Framework. 31Brief Description of Phenomenology. 31Previous Research. 33Summary. 46CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY.. 47Research Design and Methodology. 47Research Questions. 52Research Population and Sample. 53Validity and Reliability. 55Instrument 57Data Collection. 60Data Analysis. 62Ethical Considerations. 65Summary. 66CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION, FINDINGS, AND DISPLAY.. 67Introduction. 67CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 68Introduction. 68REFERENCES. 69APPENDIX A: INTRODUCTION LETTER.. 69APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT. 78APPENDIX C: SURVEY INSTRUMENT. 80List of Tables Table 1 Models of Acceptance Studied by Venkatesh et al. (2003)……………………… 28Table 2 Process of Collecting, Analyzing, and Reporting Research Data……………… 52Table 3 Research Questions and Interview Questions Correspondence………………… 58List of Figures Figure 1. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, graphically……… 27Figure 2. Conceptual framework for the proposed research………………………………… 31Figure 3. Schaper and Pervan’s (2007) model of acceptance……………………………….. 37CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem It is essential that police precincts have the most current equipment so that criminal investigators are able to solve crimes accurately and efficiently. There are many cutting-edge forensic-science technologies and techniques that have become available to be used in crime-scene investigation (Joh, 2004; Paoletti, Doom, Raymer, & Krane, 2006; Simoncelli, 2006) and in the investigation of crimes that in the past may have been left unsolved due to the complexity and difficulty of the case (Adams et al., 2004). The advent of DNA testing, for example, has opened up an arena of criminal investigation that was previously unavailable (Joh, 2006; Dennis, Steadman, & Cocozza, (2000). These forensic-science technologies and techniques offer not only new ways to solve crimes, but also more efficient means of documenting, collecting, and transporting evidence (Adams et al., 2004; Duster, 2006). However, despite these advantages, state and local municipalities are not implementing new forensic technologies.Under the American federal system, most laws are set forth as state statutes and local ordinances, with some overarching federal mandates, whereas the enforcement of these laws is the responsibility of state and local agencies (Schwabe, Davis, & Jackson, 2001). In this context, regulatory mandates in law enforcement constitute challenges that can affect technological advancements, specifically in forensic technology. Such challenges may serve as implementation impediments for smaller municipalities.Forensic science is generally accepted as a critical element in effective crime fighting; however, the shortage of forensic-science resources has created a crisis (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Crime [Committee on Crime], 2000). Although the law-enforcement and criminal-justice systems rely heavily on forensic technology, most states and municipalities have not been able to meet the demand for forensic services due to a lack of funding (Committee on Crime, 2000). In 1990, forensic caseloads increased, on average, by 23%, with only a 10% and 9% increase in funding and personnel, respectively (Committee on Crime, 2000).Exacerbating these conditions, laboratory-accreditation standards and unfunded federal mandates on analytical standards have further stretched an already short budget for these laboratories (Committee on Crime, 2000). Accreditation, which is generally analogous to quality assurance for forensic laboratories, is only attained by 50% of forensic laboratories that apply for it. The costs of facility and equipment upgrades, enhanced analytical processes, and increases in personnel required to attain and maintain accreditation are the reasons for the low-accreditation rate (Committee on Crime, 2000). Likewise, although the federal mandates are designed to improve national forensic-science practices, these standards can deplete the financial resources of the forensic laboratory (Committee on Crime, 2000), creating an impediment to the implementation of new forensic technology and use. Examples of these unfunded mandates include the standards set forth by the Department of Justice’s DNA Advisory Board (DAB), those set by federally sponsored scientific and technical working groups, and the standard-practice guidelines developed by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ; Committee on Crime, 2000).this wThere is a wealth of research examining forensic-science techniques and programs (Adams et al., 2004; Hanson, 2007; Ogle, 2004; Dennis, Steadman, & Cocozza, 2000). However, there is a lack of research that is specifically targeted at examining police departments and state and local municipal forensic laboratories and their use and views of forensic science, and the adoption of new forensic-science technology, particularly as it relates to federal mandates and how these mandates and standards affect implementation and use (Ogle, 2004). The Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community of the National Research Council (2009) indicated that the “majority of forensic science laboratories are administered by law enforcement agencies, such as police departments, where the laboratory administrator reports to the head of the agency” (p. 135). There is, however, no indication of the views of the police departments and forensic-laboratory scientists about their use and the perceived barriers to the use of forensic technology. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to provide a qualitative analysis that will reveal the challenges and barriers preventing adoption of new forensic technology at local municipalities and to offer potential solutions to management to enable the continued growth and development of forensic science in law enforcement. Background of the Study Forensic science affords many valuable options in investigating crimes (Adams et al., 2004; Steadman, 2000). It has shifted the ways in which criminal investigations are conducted and informs legal proceedings at all levels (Adams et al., 2004). According to the National Research Council (1996), when DNA evidence is properly collected and analyzed, the evidence is considered valid and reliable. DNA evidence, for example, has helped solve many crimes that were previously thought to be unsolvable (Duster, 2006; Paoletti et al., 2006); and has allowed criminals who were wrongly convicted to be released once it was discovered that their DNA did not match that of the criminals (Paoletti et al., 2006). Forensic evidence carries a significant weight in the conviction of someone accused of violent crimes (Reilly, 2001).Many previous studies have focused on specific agencies, primarily at the federal level, that make heavy use of forensic science (Duster, 2006), have a wealth of funding at their disposal, and comprise the most cutting-edge forensic-science technology (Adams et al., 2004). Even though the federal government has access to the most current forensic-science technology, there is a vast difference in the allocation of forensic-science resources at the state level (Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Lambert et al., 2003). The use of forensic-science techniques at the state level is an area that is largely unexplored (Lambert et al., 2003). At the state level, forensic science does not mirror the sophistication that is seen at the federal level (Lambert et al., 2007); many law-enforcement officials are hesitant to incorporate such practices (Miller, 2000), pointing to such impediments as the cost associated with implementing the state-of-the-art technologies in their agencies (Lambert et al., 2003; Miller, 2000).The proposed qualitative phenomenological study will explore the reasons for the adoption or nonadoption of new forensic-science technology in local municipalities through the participants’ perceptions of the impediments to forensic-technology implementation. The research will begin to ascertain why uniformity is lacking in implementation and hesitation in incorporating these techniques at the state and municipal levels. Moreover, this proposed study will examine the adoption of new forensic-science technology in local municipalities and the implications of barriers and challenges, such as federal legislation.According to adoption theory (Rogers, 1995), the adoption process involves the diffusion of an innovation, defined as a communication process by which a new idea or technology is accepted by a social group. The adoption process occurs through a five-step process: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. This process follows an S-curve so that the adoption of a technology would begin with slow change, followed by a period of rapid change, and end with a return to slow change, due to product maturity or the emergence of new technology. Rogers categorized individuals involved in the process according to characteristics that cause people to be more or less likely to adopt an idea at a particular point in time. Using an understanding of these different categorizations can lead to an understanding of how to make an idea or technology more appealing to different people (Canada, Mortensen, & Patnaik, 2007).The adoption of new forensic-science technology in local municipalities will be examined in the proposed study by considering the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, UTAUT (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis 2003). The UTAUT procedure measures both the effort expectancy and performance expectancy of an organization in assessing the adoption of newer technology (Galletta, Zhang, & Benbasat, 2006). The aim of the UTAUT is to explain the intention to use certain information systems (IS) in different organizations. The theory will measure four key concepts when it comes to the adoption of new forensic-science technology in local municipalities. These four constructs include (a)performance expectancy, (b) effort expectancy, (c) social influence, and (d) facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The UTAUT theory was developed by using eight models that explained the IS usage behavior. Subsequently, Venkatesh et al., (2003) validated the UTAUT theory, where it was found that the model was able to account for 70% of the variation in the intention to adopt the new technology. Statement of the Problem Given the increased importance of forensic technology throughout the nation’s law-enforcement communities, the problem is that an adoption impediment seems to exist at the local agency level. A number of problems regarding forensic-science technology adoption were identified in the proposed study. First, with the restricted resources available to the local municipalities, these dilemmas frequently require management to choose between forensic innovation and other departmental needs. Although federal mandates and accreditation standards are intended to improve quality in forensic laboratories, they can result in requirements that not only do not improve quality, but potentially complicate the process, adding unnecessary and costly demands on these laboratories (American Academy of Forensic Sciences [AAFS], 2004), serving as an impediment to adoption and contributing to a reluctance to invest on the part of law-enforcement management. Given the lack of funding for new equipment, supplies, and laboratory personnel, combined with increased federal regulation and inspection, the backlog of cases has become extensive, causing an equally extensive case turnaround time, which also affects the use and implementation of forensic technology by law-enforcement agencies, particularly at the local and state levels (AAFS, 2004).Frequently, police agencies opt to allocate resources to other sources. This dilemma appears to be more prevalent with the rise of forensic technologies. The cost of implementing tools is always a concern when making decisions (Berg, 2000). Police agencies are faced with determining and implementing the most effective tool for the current job (Berg, 2000).Second, one of the paramount challenges in the forensic community is staffing shortages (NIJ, 2006). At times, there are not enough individuals to operate a crime laboratory efficiently and much of staff time is allocated to addressing casework backlogs and federal unfunded mandates and regulations. Other reasons for a lack of practice are the lack of education (NIJ, 2006), lack of understanding, or misinformation regarding a particular technique or tool that may lead to poor budget decisions and inadequate provisions in policy and procedure (Berg, 2000).Third, there is a lack of collaboration among federal, state, and local forensic-science laboratories (NIJ, 2006). As a result, a number of local municipalities are not current in forensic-science techniques and practices, compared to larger cities and federal agencies (Paoletti et al., 2006). In most cases, police departments in large urban centers have the most current equipment available, whereas smaller municipalities have little access to newer technology. In fact, the configuration of forensic laboratories varies depending on the jurisdiction (Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council, 2009, p. 40). Their lack of knowledge, practice, and current equipment directly impacts the accuracy and timely flow of forensic information within and outside the organization (Simoncelli, 2006).All these potential barriers to implementation are easily compounded by federal mandates and accreditation standards. These standards of practice can further reduce staff hours (increasing backlogs) and increase costs. These unfunded mandates include organizations such as the Department of Justice’s DAB, federally sponsored scientific and technical working groups, and the NIJ, which is dedicated to improving forensic-science practices (Committee on Crime, 2000). The question becomes whether these mandates, which are designed to increase quality assurance in forensic laboratories, actually create a decrease in quality and effectiveness due to lack of resources. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the proposed study is to explore the perceptions of forensic experts regarding the impediments in the adoption of forensic-science technology on local municipalities. Specifically, the proposed study will explore the challenges and impediments that hinder local municipalities from fully adopting cutting-edge forensic technologies by exploring the perceptions of law-enforcement management and forensic specialists with the goal of proposing potential solutions to meet these challenges. The objective of the study is to not only identify and conceptualize the challenges that forensic-science laboratories face, but also to offer mitigation strategies to management, providing solutions that will enable the continued growth and use of forensic science in law enforcement in all areas, including local municipalities.Based on the information that will be collected at the municipal level, organizational challenges will be investigated and identified. In particular, the way these changes relate to applying federal mandates that serve as barriers to the adoption of new forensic technology will be the focus. These changes would better align these organizations with federal and major-city counterparts. The study will create a process model that could provide law-enforcement communities with the necessary techniques to lower the internal management decision-making curve. Results of the study could be used to produce a more efficient forensic laboratory that would provide more timely and accurate forensic data. Rationale Forensic science is important because the analysis of forensic evidence is most often used in the investigation and prosecution of civil and criminal proceedings (Sandoval, 2008). The proposed study seeks to fill the gap in the literature with regard to the access and views toward forensic technology in local municipalities, as well as the real and perceived impediments to the adoption of forensic technology. It might enhance the understanding of the current environment of forensic technology, resource allocation, and federal regulations and mandates in local police departments. Research Questions The research questions that will guide this study were designed to investigate the reasons for nonimplementation of forensic-science technology on local municipalities. The following questions will serve to guide the present study:1. What are the participants’ thoughts and perceptions regarding forensic-science technology?2. What, if any, are impediments to implementing forensic-science technology?3. What, if any, are strategies currently used and suggested for future use, in implementing forensic-science technology?4. What are the most compelling barriers that should be removed to help in seriously considering implementation of advanced forensic technology in a municipality?5. What are the opportunities, if any, for collaboration with neighboring municipalities for shared services of new forensic technology?Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested that the research questions represent the facets of an empirical domain that a researcher expects to explore. In addition, research questions and the conceptual frameworks are related (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Thus, the current research questions were grounded in the conceptual framework overarching the study. Significance of the Study The current study is important as it will address an area of research that is largely unexplored (Adams et al., 2004; Hanson, 2007; Ogle, 2004). There is a seeming lack of studies that have examined local police municipalities in regard to forensic-science technology (Ogle, 2004). Current forensic technology is critical for accurate and efficient crime solving; and is used to solve high-profile cases, especially those cases that receive a quantity of media attention (Lambert et al., 2007). However, oftentimes this is not the case in the daily functioning of police departments (Hanson, 2004). There is very limited information about the ways police use forensic-science technology, their views relating to it, any differences between various police agencies, and the effects of federal unfunded regulations on the implementation and use of forensic technology in these localities.Despite the knowledge of the benefits of forensic-science use, management continues to demonstrate a reluctance to allocate the necessary resources to provide current forensic technology at the local level due to both real and perceived barriers. Given extensive and costly accreditation requirements and federal mandates, the study may provide insight into the processes and procedures required through these mandates and regulations that are perceived as unnecessary as well as excessively time consuming by forensic specialists, as well as those processes deemed necessary and important to quality assurance. This would provide potential for management that is more effective, and practices in the organization that would reduce costs, backlogs, and other limited resources. More efficiency may lead to increased use and implementation of new forensic technology.As the study is exploratory in nature, the study may provide suggestions for future research. Efforts will be taken to analyze whether police agencies differ in their use of and effects of forensic-science technology based on their location, type, and size, in order to inform the literature. In addition, the results may be generalized to other agencies in which there is discord between state and federal levels. The study seeks to uncover strategies that may help local municipalities defray some of the costs associated with the adoption of new forensic technology. Definition of Terms The following definitions are relevant to the proposed research focusing on the impact of forensic-science technology on local municipalities.Biological fluid evidence: Biological fluid evidence is evidence that is of human or animal origin and is fluid. Mucus, perspiration, saliva, semen, and vaginal secretions are examples of biological fluid evidence (Lambert et al., 2007).DNA evidence: Evidence that includes any DNA testing, such as typing, isolation, or electrophoresis is considered DNA evidence. (Lambert et al., 2007).Document evidence: Document evidence is evidence that involves the analysis of documents. Cases that might benefit from document evidence include forgery and handwriting analysis.Forensic entomology: Forensic entomology refers to the process by which evidence determines aspects such as the time, place, and manner of death (Lambert et al., 2007).Impression evidence: Impression evidence is evidence that has retained some shape from an impression of another object. Evidence that is impression evidence retains particular characteristics of objects that have been physically pressed against them (Lambert et al, 2007).Latent and fingerprint evidence: Evidence that includes prints made by fingers, hands, or feet is considered fingerprint evidence. When the prints are not readily visible, the evidence is referred to as latent fingerprint evidence.Trace evidence: Trace evidence is evidence that has been left behind (at the crime scene) and can include hair, textile fibers, other fibers, paint chips, gunshot residue particles, and glass fragments.The definition for discussing forensic science throughout the duration of the current research is adapted from Berg (2008). Forensic science is defined as follows:The use of science in the service of the law: Sciences used in forensics include any discipline that can aid in the collection, preservation, and analysis of evidence such as chemistry (for the identification of explosives), engineering (for examination of structural design), or biology (for DNA identification or matching). A forensic scientist is expert in any technical field and can provide an analysis of the evidence, witness testimony on examination results, technical support, and even training in his or her specialized area. (Berg, 2008, p. 17). Assumptions and Limitations A series of assumptions are included in the proposed study. First, it is assumed that the proposed study will be conducted in an objective and nonbiased manner, and that the results will be valid, fair, and reliable. Second, it is assumed that the characteristics of a purposeful sample of 10 forensics-science professional participants will reflect that of other forensics-science professionals from a similar population. Third, it is assumed that the participants will provide open and honest responses and will be able to articulate their perceptions adequately. Finally, it is assumed that exploring the perceptions of local law-enforcement personnel with regard to the potential impediments to the adoption of forensic technology will provide sufficient data to identify and explore potential solutions for such impediments.To provide context for the results of this study, a number of limitations are identified. First, because the proposed study will consist of 10 forensic professionals from eight local law-enforcement municipalities and will be selected from law-enforcement agencies geographically located in the Virginia, North Carolina, Washington DC, and Maryland areas, the findings cannot be generalized to the entire population of forensic-technology professionals in local municipalities. Second, because the proposed study will primary rely on self-reports from the participants, individuals may be subject to many cognitive errors, such as hindsight, bias, and counterfactual thinking, which may be demonstrated in the study (Moustakas, 1994). Phenomenological interviews are designed to create an atmosphere in which the participant feels comfortable and will respond truthfully and comprehensively (Moustakas, 1994). However, the honesty and openness of the participants serve as limitations to the study because there is no method to confirm the reliability of their statements.Finally, the researcher, a forensic technologist with experience in the forensic-science community, will attempt to set aside personal bias during the interviews and analysis process, as suggested by Moustakas (1994). However, one cannot rule out the possibility that some researcher bias may influence the study. All responses will be recorded, coded, analyzed, and summarized using qualitative data-management processes and Moustakas’ modified van Kaam method of phenomenological analysis in an attempt to reduce potential bias and increase the validity of the study. Total anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained, and no monetary or other rewards will be offered to any participant, which should promote open and unbiased responses from participants. Nature of the Study The proposed study will employ a qualitative approach and an explorative and phenomenological research design. The choice of research design is justified by the seeming lack of research that has focused on the impact of forensic-science technology on local municipalities. The proposed study is primarily concerned with the views and practices of local law-enforcement agencies and forensic specialists, with particular interest in the perceived impediments to the adoption and allocation of resources and the effects of federal legislation on forensic laboratories. A phenomenological research design is appropriate to address this gap in research in the impact of forensic-science technology on local municipalities (Moustakas, 1994).Using a purposeful sampling method 10 participants will be recruited (Patton, 2002). After participants sign and return informed-consent forms to the researcher, they will participate in semistructured face-to-face or telephone interviews. Participants will be asked open-ended questions regarding their everyday experiences with forensic-science technology, their views on forensic-science technology, and the perceived impediments to the implementation of new forensic-science technology, such as education and certifications, cost issues, training issues, and the effects of federal mandates.The interviews will be recorded and transcribed for analysis. Moustakas’ (1994) modified van Kaam method of phenomenological analysis will be used in conjunction with qualitative data-analysis software, such as NVivo, to identify commonalities and emergent themes in participants’ responses. The data gathered from the forensic professionals of the local municipalities will allow for the creation of a process model that will provide the local law-enforcement communities with the necessary techniques and potential solutions to implement forensic-science technology and lower the internal management decision-making curve. The proposed study might be instrumental to the creation of a highly efficient forensic laboratory that provides timely and accurate forensic data. Organization of the Remainder of the Study In this introductory chapter, background information about the role of forensic technology in law enforcement was provided, the problem statement was defined, and the context for the importance of the study was discussed. In addition, the study was outlined by identifying the research questions, variables, and basic terminology that will be used throughout the study. Chapter 2 will provide a literature review of pertinent studies, dissertations, and articles. CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The purpose of the proposed study is to explore the perceptions of forensic experts regarding the impediments to the adoption of forensic-science technology on local municipalities. Specifically, the study will examine the specific challenges and impediments that hinder local municipalities from fully adopting cutting-edge forensic technologies by exploring the perceptions of law-enforcement management and forensic specialists with the goal of proposing potential solutions to meet these challenges. Furthermore, the objective of the study is to not only identify and conceptualize the challenges that forensic-science laboratories face, but also to offer mitigation strategies to management, providing solutions that will enable the continued growth and use of forensic science in law enforcement.This literature review will present the results of a search of the current literature regarding the implementation and adoption of technology, with specific regard to forensic technologies when available. Websites, books, dissertations, and journal articles were the primary media used for this literature review. The researcher found pertinent information by manually searching in libraries and by searching electronically using Google Scholar and other numerous online libraries and journal databases. Keyword searches included searches for forensic-science technology, barriers of technology implementation, UTAUT, forensic UTAUT, adoption of technology, and phenomenology, among other phrases.The literature review begins with a brief introduction and then continues to thoroughly discuss and explain the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003), along with the models that were studied by Venkatesh et al., 2003. Next, potential impediments of the adoption of forensic-science technologies will be briefly discussed. A brief section will support the choice of the research methodology for this study, and the final section summarizes the literature review. Brief Discussion on Forensic Science Forensic science affords many valuable options in investigating crimes (Adams et al., 2004; Dennis, Steadman, & Cocozza, 2000). It has shifted the ways in which criminal investigations are conducted and informs legal proceedings at all levels (Adams et al., 2004). DNA evidence, for example, has helped solve many crimes

"You need a similar assignment done from scratch? Our qualified writers will help you with a guaranteed AI-free & plagiarism-free A+ quality paper, Confidentiality, Timely delivery & Livechat/phone Support.

Discount Code: CIPD30

WHATSAPP CHAT: +1 (781) 253-4162

Click ORDER NOW..