8127/frame/fm

part because they are reluctant to deny the defense access to an expert. The
question that must be asked in such cases goes beyond scientific qualification
and enters the arena of ethics. What is the motivation behind the testimony
of such experts? Do their suggestions that are intended to discredit some
forensic work contain scientific merit, or is the goal simply to confuse, divert,
or mislead. Do data exist to substantiate the issues proffered, or are the stated
concerns vague and of no relevance to the particular case? (see Figure 11.2).
While we may never have complete control over who is allowed to offer
expert testimony in a court of law, we can at least espouse and enforce
minimum standards for those who examine and analyze evidence. If the
profession sets and enforces a universal standard, and requires practitioners
to join the profession, the court might follow our lead and ask other potential
witnesses to meet this standard.
 
c.
A Single Code of Ethics
In addition to requiring membership in a profession to practice, individuals
are typically required to agree to the organization’s code of ethics at the time
of their induction. Frequently, this is incorporated into the knowledge exam-
ination, such as is done in medicine and law, and also by the ABC. A single
code of ethics would unify the forensic profession. Multiple ethical standards
make it too easy “code shop,” and a lack of cohesiveness within the commu-
nity lessens the influence of any one code, making it more acceptable to
subscribe to no code. Apparent dissension also provides an easy target for
outside criticism. However, it is unclear whose code should prevail and how
this should be determined.
8127/frame/ch12 Page 315 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:37 AM

---

316
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics