About the project
The project 'Traces of Crime: A study of evidence production in criminal justice' examined how crime scene technicians and forensic scientists navigate the landscape of evidence production technologies.
The findings were published in four individual articles (see below) that show how evidence comes into being in the Norwegian criminal justice system. Collectively, the findings show how new ways of analysing and storing seized items can change the relationship between technology, evidence, and the rule of law.
The “evidence chain” and “journey of the trace” are umbrella terms for what many think of as the evidence material’s journey from the crime scene to the courtroom. The study was based on visits to 13 sites along the Norwegian evidence chain and interviews with 40 people, including 30 crime scene technicians, six forensic geneticists, and four experts from the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, and the United States.
May lead to conviction or acquittal
Information about crime comes into being when crime scene investigators collect and document trace materials, such as DNA traces, fingerprints, and potential weapons. The evidence is examined both at the scene, in the police laboratory, and in forensic genetics laboratories. For example, DNA profiles can be generated from crime scene materials, and compared with existing profiles in the police’s databases. This information is central to further investigation. It can later be presented to the court, and may lead to a conviction or an acquittal.
Objective, silent witnesses?
The way the actors work reflects some fundamental values in the modern Norwegian legal system. First, there is great faith in objects as objective “witnesses” when it comes to crime. While objects are perceived to tell the truth, human witnesses can lie or misremember, and are therefore considered less reliable than, for example, a DNA profile.
The project nevertheless shows that so-called “objective” evidence is produced by people. Choices are continually made, for example about which swab to send for analysis. Such choices affect what information comes into being about the crime scene and those involved. Describing the evidence as “objective” can therefore be a rhetorical device that bolsters the notion of the justice system as objective and trustworthy.
The technological gaze
Technology is central when information about crime is produced. Crime scene investigators and forensic scientists “see through technology” when they examine traces.
Many traces are so small that microscopes and cameras are necessary to even see them. Other times, it may seem safest and easiest to monitor the seized item with sensors that detect changes in the air—rather than having to personally keep watch to see whether the evidence material is deteriorating or being damaged. The PhD thesis also discusses a new type of DNA analysis that allegedly recreates or reconstructs unknown faces from DNA material. This technology is not currently in use in Norway, but may be in the near future.
Such practices reflect a trust in technology as knowledge-producing, including in police work. At the same time, the study shows that crime scene technicians in particular make use of “low-tech” methods in addition to newer technology. According to them, this is done to maintain control over the process and preserve the integrity of their work. The technological picture is thus complex and multifaceted.
Evidence in future case reopenings
The National Long-Term Evidence Storage Facility in Eastern Norway is an entirely new initiative in which seized items from all Norwegian police districts will be stored for possible future analysis and the reopening of cases. The initiative may have major significance for the Norwegian justice system.
In recent years, the police’s handling of seized material in older cases, such as Baneheia and Karmøy, has received much attention. This is because new analyses of older material have produced new information. The police have at times also been criticized, including by the Office of the Auditor General, for storing seized items in in unsafe ways. The new national evidence storage facility is intended as insurance against evidence being destroyed locally. At the same time, centralization introduces new risk: should something happen to this facility, we risk losing Norway’s entire material legal history.
From a criminological perspective, one might say that indefinite preservation of evidence means that cases never entirely come to an end. This challenges the principle of case closure in the Norwegian legal system.
