Forensics (also called criminalistics) emerged as a science in the 19th century. We asked Dr Ryszard Krawczyk from the JU Chair in Forensic Science about its focus development, problems, and challenges that it faces in the 21st century.
Kamil Sikora: What exactly is forensic science?
Dr Ryszard Krawczyk: Forensic science was born at crime scenes. Today, it’s a branch of science that uses all modern technological accomplishments in order to fight crime, as evidenced by frequent meetings and sessions of both theorists and practitioners organised in order to share knowledge and experiences. For instance, recently an international conference held to mark 60 years of the Forensic Science Laboratory of the Police Headquarters in Kraków was aptly named ‘Criminalistics – science and new technologies’.
Generally speaking, modern forensic science focuses on two aspects. The first one is crime scene, and the second one involves lab work and data analysis. Currently, we can see that the second aspect is gaining more and more importance. This is visible even at the Jagiellonian University, where forensic science study programmes are being modified to include not only crime scene investigations, but also laboratory techniques. New technologies are becoming much more impactful. They allow us to find and secure evidence we’d never even think of decades ago, and then analyse them in great detail in the lab.
How is Poland doing when it comes to forensic science?
Very good, I think. Let’s take Prof. Jan Sehn Institute of Forensic Science in Kraków. It’s a world-class institution, both in terms of experts and equipment. It only provides services for broadly understood law enforcement. Conversely, members of the Polish Forensic Association (and many private firms) can be hired to provide expertise for anyone. Students often ask me if the Institute of Forensic Science in Kraków needs lawyers. No, it needs chemists, physicists, biologists, and engineers. They conduct various research projects – from car crash simulations to genetic, anthropological, and physico-chemical studies.
What are the changes that happened to forensic science over the years?
Forensic science and crime compete against each other in a never-ending race. There were some cases in the past (like during the Polish transformation in the 1990s), criminals gained the upper hand. For instance, there was the famous case of thieves stealing oil form a pipeline in the Northern Harbour in Gdańsk, where the police couldn’t stop them because the perpetrators had much more advanced equipment. But it didn’t last long. Now, the police is always a step ahead. But of course, it doesn’t mean that the criminals have stopped trying. There was another group of thieves which specialised in stealing high-end home theatre systems. Their break-ins were carefully orchestrated ahead of time – the burglars knew exactly when and where to go and what to take. They didn’t steal anything else, because they didn’t have to: they had a steady demand for the theatre systems. Criminals are sometimes very inventive, they are constantly trying to find new ways to turn a profit. In many cases, they are professionals with an extensive intelligence network.
There are several periods in the history of forensic science, all of them related to some kind of technology. Up until recently, fingerprint analysis was the dominant method of obtaining evidence. At the moment, we’re entering the DNA period. Many unsolved cases are being re-examined through genetic tests. While it’s definitely very good, we need to remember that even with a DNA sample, it might be difficult to apprehend a criminal after 20 years or so. Although DNA test are very valuable, we always teach our students that they’re not enough: the whole process of analysis must be carried out with rigorous precision. If it’s not, there is a risk of contamination, and that may lead to the test’s outcome coming into question.
Is there such a thing as perfect crime?
Of course there is – but that would be a crime without a motive. To give an example, let’s say that a person is walking around Kraków’s Planty park on a rainy evening, and suddenly takes a stone and smashes another person’s head. If there are not witnesses, there is no way of connecting the victim to the perpetrator. The rain takes care of fingerprints and footprints. From a purely theoretical standpoint, it’s a perfect crime, but I doubt anyone would commit it. A motive is the central point of all crimes. ‘Why did they do it?’ is one of the most important things to ask in an investigation.
Read part two here.
Original text: www.nauka.uj.edu.pl
