IndexSummaryDescription of forensic science evidenceStrengths and limitations of forensic scienceRecommendationsTools used in forensic science and their effectivenessConclusionWorks CitedSummaryForensic science, with its new technological breakthroughs, has greatly contributed to the ease of prosecuting suspicions and carrying out investigations within the justice systems. However, despite the importance of forensic science in trials, several challenges have been encountered in its implementation. These challenges highlight the limitations associated with adopting forensic science in exams. However, these advances and constraints have led to the continued development of criminal justice platforms. In this article, the focus will be primarily on the importance of forensic science, its use by the prosecution and defense, and exploring the strengths and weaknesses of forensic science technology. Furthermore, recommendations will be made to facilitate the admission of testimony in court and further improve the field of forensic science. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Forensic Science Evidence Description Fire, which is always an integral part of everyday life, can pose a great risk in some cases. In the indictment, fire can be used as a weapon for criminal intent, a concept called arson. Globally, there are various police departments that are assigned the role of carrying out fire investigations. However, in some places there is a completely different and independent task force responsible for investigating fires. Studies (The Forensics Library, n.d.) indicate that 16 major U.S. cities have a fire department tasked with investigating fires and arsons, while only four cities have police and municipal crews available. (Lee, 1951). The study also pointed out that there was almost an even split within the sixteen cities as to which had a dedicated team, which had no team, and which had serviced teams (Lee, 1951). Unlike numerous other categories of forensic science such as the use of DNA and fingerprints, fire analysis adopts the method of trained professionals to verify and interpret available evidence which helps them reach conclusions about whether a suspect whether or not he was involved in arson (Dioso-Villa, 2013). The procedure can be difficult but is structured in such a way that there are a number of backup approaches that strengthen the evidence used by investigative agencies to reach conclusions about arson. The main concern of the forensic investigation is always the security of the site. Safety is determined by the structural competence of the building, electrical outlets, gas lines, and any other materials that may have been damaged by a fire that may have given rise to toxic mixtures (Forensic Library, n.d.). As a result, there are safety measures that must always be put in place before starting any investigation. When investigators begin carrying out their forensic audit work, it is always necessary to exercise great caution about what they touch at the crime scene. Photos and samples are always taken from the crime scene to ensure that the evidence collected is a solid construct that cannot be influenced by memory or human guilt. During the photo taking process, specific critical steps must be followed to ensure that the investigation team leaves no stone unturned. Theinvestigators must move systematically from the outside as they enter the home, recording everything they see and drawing their own personal inferences to remember and refer to later (The Forensics Library, n.d.). This will be of great help in the next step to determine the origin of the fire. The location of the fire's origin can tell a lot about the type and cause of the fire and the state the home was in before the fire broke out. Once the background has been established, the investigation team will begin the process of establishing the potential causes of the fire. The team will ask a series of questions, such as whether the fire was accelerated, whether there were faults in the cabling system, whether there was forced entry and whether the site has been tampered with in any way. These questions could offer a lot of help to the investigation team in telling what happened in the place that caused the fire and even provide a lead to the potential arsonist, if there was one. After establishing this, the investigating agency and police departments may have enough evidence that they can use against the alleged arsonists in a court of law. Strengths and Limitations of Forensic Science The justice system has various advantages and weaknesses regarding the type of forensic evidence presented and its use in courts. First of all, among the limitations is the lack of training. Fire investigators are considered expert eyewitnesses and therefore do not require education levels above high school. Diplomas and any other scientific training are always considered unnecessary in fire investigations (Dioso-Villa, 2013). This means that fire experts have no other way to demonstrate their superior knowledge other than experience gained through a series of investigations. More than experience. According to Lee's diary, fire experts can be grouped into different categories depending on their qualifications. The first group is made up of graduates with training in chemistry, engineering and law. The second group was trained based on the fire expert's experience and specific number of years spent in forensic firefighting. The last grouping was made based on the need for thorough knowledge of the rules and regulations of a fire expert and the specific requirements that one had to meet before becoming a fire expert (Lee, 1951). Despite the strict requirements, some rewards were given to particular individuals for possessing certain qualities. Firefighters who do not have sufficient knowledge of fire forensics may find themselves on the wrong side of the defense team who decides to take advantage of their naivety. This will lead to a limitation in the case as some evidence is not presented well because the investigating experts do not have the necessary knowledge to clarify the facts but are somewhat dependent on experience. Different courts have different jurisdictions and different decision-making standards. thus making it difficult to present testimony and evidence from state to state (Dioso-Villa, 2013). The experience previously gained by a fire expert can be used as an advantage because it will give the investigator a lot of time to decide a case based on experience. However, some cases continue to change and their prevailing situation may require experts to have knowledge in fire forensic science (Dioso-Villa, 2013). While an expert fire expert can surpass an expert, he can pose a problem when presenting testimony in court because he will ignore various basic principles of fire forensic science, something that can be used against him by the defendant. Expert and non-expert colleaguestrained people will tend to present testimony in a way that cannot be interpreted by the defense and prosecution teams because they lack basic knowledge principles. Fire investigations are based on opinion and the person charged with presenting evidence before the court should do so more intelligently. that he/she can convince everyone in that room to believe his/her opinion about the evidence. When an expert does not have legal training, he or she may fail to present evidence in the right way because it will constitute an element of ignorance about primary legal principles and concepts about fires. This will cause a lot of confusion in the courtroom and may lead to obstruction of justice. With the knowledge of fire forensic principles, drawing conclusions about the evidence provided by experts becomes a very simple task because it will be evident what causes what when it comes to evidence (Yuen, Yeoh, Alexander, & Cook, 2014), Most judges will tend to trust evidence supported by adequate explanations and a visual presentation. This is a strong influence predominantly of the fire test. While these graphical representations other than misplaced statements arise from the experience of experts. Forensic fire experts, therefore, must restore jury confidence in the validity of evidence presented before a court of law by supporting the evidence with scientific explanations (Yuen, Yeoh, Alexander, & Cook, 2014). Fire forensics has many advantages and limitations, as discussed above. The area is still growing and continues to change over time, and further studies can help deepen the knowledge of various experts around the world. Recommendations Due to the strengths and weaknesses available in fire and arson investigations, there are often several references that are pursued on a daily basis to ensure the best services from the department regarding cases brought before the courts to obtain justice for the victims . In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a statement on the general issue, strengths and weaknesses of the application of forensic science in the department. Although it is considered a good step towards overall unification, several gaps still exist before forensic science is fully integrated into investigations. (National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2009). Above all, unity is needed across all territories and states to promote a high degree of openness within the investigative agency. Unified policies would also allow courts to perform their function more efficiently across territories and states in cases that arise along borders. Furthermore, there would also be a greater need for tangible approaches to verify and reject certain situations. There seems to be more weight in explanations and more value in expertise than a person with scientific knowledge. Further fire and arson investigations would involve investigators reaching an agreement to reduce subjectivity in scenarios with higher compensation for those investigated in a controlled environment rather than creating rules or disapproving policies and strategies that are outdated and no longer necessary. Furthermore, it is necessary to further enhance the training of experts to obtain more excellent qualifications. Through incentives, for example, salary increases and some benefits, experts are motivated to carry out these investigations accurately and with more exceptional determinations. With high training and qualification, there would be present of a well-rounded fire investigator department as well as high perception and vision on the use of forensic science to solve various fire incidents - finally, better assistancefor workloads as an all-encompassing approach forensic science help. Fire and arson services often operate within various forces, for example, police departments and councils which place too much pressure on different sectors and government due to constraints available to ensure multiple cases are solved and evidence presented before the court. Additional support and funding from different departments would provide the time and resources needed to be directed towards emerging and developing techniques of crime investigation. These approvals can be put into practice in various countries around the world to improve the continuity and operations of the department. As a result of the ever-evolving know-how and emphasis on the growing incidence of crime, not necessarily the fairness and consensus of investigators, it is therefore vital to ensure that the strengths and weaknesses of particular investigative bodies are recognised. These limitations may be found in departments that investigate fires and arsons. Tools Used in Forensic Science and Their Effectiveness The conventional method used in forensic science is DNA matching. DNA Fingerprinting involves obtaining biological evidence from the crime scene, analyzing the DNA content, and comparing it to a sample of the suspect's DNA. Where DNA from the crime scene matches that of the suspect, then there is a high probability that the evidence came from the suspect (National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2009). However, if the DNA is different, the suspect may be innocent as law enforcement searches for other evidence to identify the primary suspect. Biological samples include blood, hair, semen or saliva, and the DNA structure removed and compared to that of the suspect. This technique works because two individuals cannot have the same DNA unless they are identical twins. In that case, other approaches such as fingerprinting can help point investigators to the real suspect since, different DNA, identical twins can have comparable fingerprints since they are not the same. Peterson (2010) states that criminal case investigations specified that as of 2008, DNA fingerprinting was more operational than regular fingerprinting. For example, rates of explanation for property crimes doubled with the collection of DNA evidence, and that homicide cases with DNA samples were more likely to reach probation than those without samples. Additionally, DNA fingerprinting is particularly effective in using evidence databases because evaluation and matching tend to provide a clear result, which quickly allows investigators to discover other possibilities when the case is still fresh. The first type of evidence that forensic science presents is genetic evidence. They take the smallest evidence such as hair, saliva, and other small body tissues that may have been left behind by the offenders (Lee, 1951). They then take the samples to the lab and match them to the suspects. If the case has no suspects, then they use the information to try to get DNA matches from the government database. Genetic evidence is also crucial as it helps exonerate innocent suspects in the case. Through forensic science, the criminal justice system is also able to analyze physical evidence (Peterson, 2010). These include items such as shoe prints, finger and hand prints, blood spatter patterns and fiber samples found at crime scenes. Another type of physical evidence concerns the weapons used by, 2014.