Support The miscarriage of justice in the Barker case was due to the mistaken views held by some of the forensic scientists involved in the case, who believed that they owed allegiance only to the prosecuting lawyers. βββββββ βββ ββββββββ βββββββ βββββ ββββββββ ββββββββββ ββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββββ βββββββββββ ββ ββββ βββ βββββββ βββ βββ ββββββββββββ βββββ ββ ββ βββ ββββββββ βββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββ ββββββ ββ βββββββββ βββ ββββ ββββββββββ
The author concludes that forensic science in general wasnβt responsible for the miscarriage of justice in the Barker case. This is because it was the individual forensic scientists involved who wrongfully acted with allegiance to the prosecution, rather than acting impartiality for both the prosecution and defence.
The author assumes that allegiance to the prosecution isnβt an essential aspect of forensic science in a trial; if it was, then forensic science in general would indeed be to blame for the miscarriage of justice. The author also assumes that forensic science as a whole is not well-represented by these forensic scientists.
Analysis by AlexandraNash
Which one of the following, ββ βββββ ββββ βββββββββββ βββ βββββββββ
Most forensic scientists βββββββββββ β ββββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββββ βββββββββββ ββ ββββ βββ βββββββ βββ βββ ββββββββββββ
The type of βββββββββ ββββ ββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββββ ββ βββββ βββββ ββ βββββ
Most prosecuting lawyers βββββββ ββββ ββββββββ ββββββββββ βββ β βββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββββ
Many instances of βββββββββ ββ βββββ βββββ βββ βββ ββ βββ ββββ ββββ ββ ββββ βββββ ββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββ βββββ
Many forensic scientists ββ βββ βββββββ ββββ βββ βββββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββ βββββ