Toxicology in the Criminal Justice System ©

Toxicology in the Criminal Justice System
Jeannette Villatoro
Forensics BLK1042A
Jen Brockel
November 15, 2010















Toxicology in the Criminal Justice System

Forensic science has been a significant aspect of the criminal justice system for centuries. With the flourishing determination to develop forensic science throughout the years, advancements have led to the development of many significant sciences, including toxicology. Understanding and studying the adverse effects of chemicals on biological systems has proven to be a necessary force in the criminal justice system. By exploring new theories in toxicology, successes and failures throughout the historical progression of this science has led to incredible strides in crime investigation and a promise for a more proficient future in toxicological studies.

Forensic Science

Since the inception of history, forensic science has been fully perused. The development of understanding of science and how it can apply to legal matters has been a necessary force in society and the interest of the criminal justice field. Since the 1950s, the fascinating marriage of science with criminal justice has led to amazing developments in the handling of the age-old burden of crime.

One of the major contributions to the successful progression of forensic science is the commencement of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 1950. The goal of this organization was to bring multi-disciplinary professionals together for the purpose of seeking the continued advancement of science for the benefit of the legal system (American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2010). In doing so, this organization propelled a unique focus on forensic science for the future of criminal justice.

Another major contribution to the advancement of forensic science was the discovery of the Kidd blood grouping system by F. H. Allen and colleagues in 1951. This blood group is a product of a certain gene that has proteins acting as urea transporters (Rudin & Inman, 2002). These proteins affect the kidneys and other antigens in the body and the understanding of this blood grouping system enhanced the knowledge of forensics and toxicology in particular.

Great discoveries did not cease in the 1950s and soon a new accomplishment would generate an even greater desire to increase the awareness and development of forensic science. Paul Leland Kirk, a forensic scientist, published Crime Investigation (Rudin & Inman, 2002). This book served as a guidebook to many criminalists and other forensic scientists. Kirk was able to outline the mastery of forensic science and through his observation of a particular murder case, was able to contribute to the exoneration of a convicted suspect after twelve years of incarceration for the crime.

In 1954, R. F. Borkenstein created the breathalyzer for field testing of sobriety (Rudin & Inman, 2002). By implementing forensic science to develop a way to determine the alcohol content in a person’s breath, this device became an astounding contribution to the criminal justice system.

Developments in the field of forensic science continued to change the face of science and law. A major contributor was Maurice Miller. In 1960 Miller described the ways in which gas chromatography worked in identifying petroleum products and gasoline (Rudin & Inman, 2002). The use of gas chromatography quickly became the standard in most forensic laboratories.

Bloodstain analysis became a strong focus in forensic science in 1967 when Brain Culliford and Brian Wraxall developed new methods of analyzing and testing bloodstains (Rudin & Inman, 2002). Throughout the 1970s, forensic science discoveries would perpetuate advancement in the field beyond measure. Gunshot residue analysis would be born and a system to classify fingerprints would create an immeasurable efficiency in the criminal justice system.

In later decades, DNA profiling would advance forensic science. DNA would become a major focus in forensic science throughout the years to come. Forensic science and the thirst for a greater application of this concept were in high demand. Beginning in the middle of the twentieth century and continuing until the end of this century, society became more concerned with chemicals in the environment that could cause harm to the human body (Hayes, 2008). The American Board of Toxicology was developed in 1980 and the concern for the necessity to analyze the causes of death of crime victims flourished. As toxicology developed to provide answers for these alarming concerns, it became evident that toxicology as a forensic science would provide a benefit to criminal investigations. The understanding and desire for knowledge of toxicology as it pertained to forensic investigation helped to develop the intrinsic theories of toxicology that exist today.

Methods and Theories

Toxicology has become a major necessity in the field of forensic science. Throughout the many scientific changes that have affected toxicology and its application to criminal justice, many new and exciting features of this forensic science has surfaced. The primary concern for environmental health grew into a science that could benefit criminal law. How chemicals affect the living and how these chemicals react to one’s one biological structure to create illness or death brought about the demand for toxicology. When being used as a forensic science for the criminal justice field, toxicology has undergone major changes to elicit better and more efficient tools for analysis.

The first simplistic theory of toxicology was introduced by Paracelus in 1493 when he imposed the idea that the dose makes the poison (Goldstein & Gallo, 2001). This idea catapulted the understanding that any chemical in overabundance could be harmful to biological systems. The author of the most impactful law of toxicology was Paré who developed the understanding of the specific effects that can occur from chemicals reacting to biological functions (Goldstein & Gallo, 2001). Paré initiated the first case study of this ideal in which prisoners would be tested to prove the damaging nature of some chemicals and the biological reactions that govern the principles of toxicology. This study, although inhumane and unjustified, resulted in the essence of hazardous toxins being recognized when given in high doses. Further down the line, it would become acceptable to test theories of toxic substances on animals rather than human subjects (Goldstein & Gallo, 2001).

Because there are over twenty one million substances documented in databases that can adversely affect the human body, new methods of identifying the harm of substances was becoming a desperate need in forensic science (Society of Toxicology, 2008). The Drug Abuse Warning Network founded in 1977 projected an enormous interest in toxicology. Hospital surveys done by the Drug Abuse Warning Network began to perpetuate alarming statistics in drug use. According to John and Joseph Fenton, “a survey of hospital emergency departments by DAWN showed an increase in heroine-related admission on the order of 44% between 1992 and 1993” (Fenton & Fenton, 2002). Additionally, cocaine-related admissions rose over 5% during the same timeframe while methamphetamine-related admissions rose a staggering 61% at this time (Fenton & Fenton, 2002). Further studies revealed distressing statistics on the use of alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs by pregnant women and the detrimental effects on the fetus. This dilemma brought toxicology to the forefront to protect the health and well-being of citizens in conjunction with developing new methods of analyzing hazardous substances present during a crime.

The reactions of the body to certain substances vary so greatly that toxicology can be a tricky science. Additionally, the cause of death can be difficult to determine if more than one injury is the cause. In one particular case, a man named Donald Harvey worked as a nurse’s aide from 1983 to 1987. During this time, he killed several patients by suffocation, metal-based poisoning, and tranquilizers (Ramsland, 2004). This crime shocked the nation and revealed the sensitivity of time to toxicology and the possibility of differing causes of death posing a dilemma in a single crime.

The testing methods of toxicology have always been the crux of how hazardous chemicals were identified and analyzed (DeRosa, 1997). Development has rapidly increased in the late 20th century and early 21st century to make certain that these methods continuously improve for the purpose of environmental protection and the application of toxicology in the criminal justice field. With the understanding of alcohol and drug effects rising, the study of toxicology found new scientific methods for understanding these effects. Gas chromatography and spectrometry were the successful result of such understanding and the use of these methods boomed in the field of toxicology during the middle of the 20th century. By dissolving tissues in an acidic solution and using high-pressure gas chromatography for analysis, direct testing was enabled. Further testing methods such as immunoassay surfaced so that the best approach for detecting low drug levels would be possible without prior analytical methods (Saferstein, 2009). These effectual testing methods eliminated the need to go through the process of extraction, which often led to unstable results produced from tedious processes (Ramsland, 2004).

Analysis

Some major successes and failures colored the history of toxicology to the present time. The conception of toxicology began with the notion of the presence of toxins and quickly progressed to quantifying poisons. One famous case that occurred in the middle 20th century led to an understanding of the necessity of using time in the analysis of toxic substances and the ability for corpses to absorb toxic substances after death occurs. Marie Besnard was accused of killing twelve people with arsenic between 1929 and 1949 (Ramsland, 2004). Exhumation of the bodies revealed high levels of arsenic in each victim, however, only circumstantial evidence was gathered to indict Marie Besnard for the murders. During witness testimony of a toxicologist for the defense, a new theory came to light that arsenic could enter the hair of a corpse in the ground through anaerobic bacteria (Ramsland, 2004). Because of this theory, the toxicologist on the case had the burden of proving that the arsenic was administered before the burial of the victims. By exposing the hair of a victim to radioactivity for over twenty six hours, this element of the case could have been proven. However, because the toxicologist failed to expose the hair for the required length of time, Marie Besnard was acquitted (Ramsland, 2004). The outcome of this case proved to be unfortunate, but the mistakes of the toxicologist and the awareness of poison affecting a corpse made a significant contribution to toxicology and its application to future criminal cases.

Trial and error continues to mark the successes and failures of toxicology throughout history. Testing protocols have been the most blundering issue. During the early 20th century, early acute toxicity studies were done in a seven-day period (Kamrin, 1988). The continued failures of this method and the lack of results produced brought about the standard fourteen-day period protocol in the late 20th century. With all of the improvements in toxicology in the 21st century, time continues to be a limitation with testing because analysis can take several weeks. This is usually counterproductive to law enforcement as evidence needs to be gathered and analyzed quickly to allow a case to develop and investigation to continue.

The testing of animals perpetuated great success in the field of toxicology as well. Initially, results were constrained in the beginning stages of animal testing during the 20th century. Results varied greatly and the components of the chemicals did not produce consistent results. This propagated the understanding that diet, breeding conditions, and environmental issues had an effect on the results of the testing (Kamrin, 1988). This knowledge allowed toxicologists to have more control with testing conditions and to produce more accurate results.

Another instrumental case that involved forensic toxicology was that of Robert Curley. In 1991, Curly was admitted to the hospital on numerous occasions but doctors could not discern what the ailment was. Curley died after a month of puzzling symptoms and agonizing pain. Through examination, it was discovered that he had heavy levels of thallium in his system. Although it was evident that heavy metal exposure caused his death, investigators could not locate a suspect. Dr. Frederic Reiders, a private toxicologist, was solicited to use up-to-date toxicological examination techniques on the corpse. His breakthrough method of conducting a segmental analysis on the hair shaft to devise a timeline of thallium exposure and ingestion brought investigators to a known suspect (Ramsland, 2004). This method revolutionized the way in which analysis on corpses continued throughout the 20th century as it provided a new technique and incorporated this technique with criminal investigation.

The toxicology laboratory has been a major issue in this particular field of forensic science. Many attempts at laboratory development failed to present the kind of tools and analysis needed for criminal justice. As the shift began to change from environmental safety towards criminal investigation, toxicology went through major alterations. One of the foremost problems that occur within the laboratory is the timing in which a sufficient analysis for evidence can be provided. The knowledge of the importance of gas chromatography in the middle of the 20th century helped to motivate more powerful tools in the laboratory which eliminated failed toxicological results due to human error (California Department of Justice, 1999).
Advancements in Toxicology

Most theories on how to improve toxicological testing methods relied on more technological advances being applied to toxicology. Perhaps the most noteworthy development in toxicology became the increased modification of laboratories with an accreditation for toxicology. As stated by Rawat, et al., “advances in computer sciences and hardware combined with equally significant developments in molecular biology and chemistry are providing toxicology with a powerful new tool box” (Rawat, et. al, 2007, p. 1). The uncertainty of experimental testing was eagerly replaced by computational toxicology. The computed models manifested quickly in many laboratories to develop cross-extrapolation techniques that proved much more efficient in determining the presence of poisonous or toxic chemicals (Demchuk, et al., 2008). By allowing this method to evolve, toxicological evidence becomes more valid in the courtroom. Rather than rely on methods that provide analysis through long, painstaking testing that is conducted by perceived calculations, using a computer model reduces the margin of error. Most chemicals that cause death or illness when administered in abundance, such as morphine, do not decompose quickly (Adeyemi, et al., 2010). Therefore, proper analysis can be made with the accuracy of computer models in toxicology to present a better display of evidence in the courtroom to convict a suspect if poisoning is a factor.

Advancements continue in the 21st century as computer technology is utilized with the forensic science of toxicology. Chemical characterization is made possible by these advances. According to The National Research Council, “chemical characterization involves the compilation of data on physical and chemical properties, uses, environmental surveillance, fate and transport, and properties that relate to the potential for exposure, bioaccumulation, and toxicity” (National Research Council, 2007). Laboratories that support newer methods and more technological equipment have the opportunity to produce accurate results and gain new knowledge of more intricate techniques for the future.

Future

The criminal justice system thrives to prevent crime and prosecute criminals to prevent further harm to society. Forensic toxicology is a key component to the intentions of the criminal justice system and to crime investigation in particular. Chemical toxins cannot usually be detected with the naked eye and very rarely is evidence of toxic substances left at a crime-scene. Toxicology works diligently to detect such substances during a criminal investigation.

When a crime investigator properly collects and stores blood and tissue samples for analysis, a toxicologist performs the necessary methods to determine unusual chemical reactions in the biological systems of a body (Adeyemi, et al., 2010). The demands of toxicology, however, go beyond mere detection and analysis. A toxicologist must be able to work closely with police to provide expert opinion and predictions. One of the most comprehensive tools that will continue to advance toxicology for the benefit of police work is the Drug Recognition Expert program. This program offers a broad spectrum of drugs that may have been taken based on the effects of the nervous system. However, the Drug Recognition Expert program cannot provide specific drug possibilities based on an analysis (Saferstein, 2009). This program is essential to practical toxicology analysis but the limitations of this program deem this system unreliable on its own. In conjunction with the professional analysis of a forensic toxicologist, this program incorporates standardized methods for examining suspects to determine if drugs were ingested (Saferstein, 2009).

Police will continue to utilize methods of toxicology when working with the public. The breathalyzer is one mechanism that has provided to be an enormous contribution to the detection of alcohol use while driving. When police correctly administer this device, accurate results protect the suspect and potential victims from harm.

Toxicology is significant to police work because of the astronomical issues of drug and alcohol abuse in society. Furthermore, drug and alcohol abuse is connected closely with the committal of many crimes. The annual Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows that as much as 78% of some convicted criminals tested positive for drugs when incarcerated (National Drug Control Policy, 2000). Toxicology is the science that can connect police officers with the evidence needed of such drug and alcohol use. Other devices and mechanisms that may surface in the 21st century pertaining to toxicology and the detection of alcohol and drugs will undoubtedly benefit the future of police work.

Forensic science has flourished so readily in the 20th and 21st centuries that it has become indispensable to the criminal justice system. Evidence relies on the distinct accuracy that forensic evidence can provide. Toxicology has proven to be a huge contender in the field of criminal justice and has gone through scientific changes that amount to technological advances indispensable to police agencies and criminal investigators. Although limitations of forensic toxicology may delay possibilities, the advancements in this field are undeniably necessary for police to conduct proper investigations that lead to convictions in the courtroom now and in the future.















References

Adeyemi, A., Garelick, H., & Priest, N. (2010). A biokinetic model to describe the distribution and excretion of arsenic by man following acute and chronic intakes of arsenite/arsenate compounds by ingestion. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 29(11), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=2166766171&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fm t=6&Vinst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288664995&clientId=74379.

California Department of Justice (1999). Toxicological analysis. Retrieved from http://www.cci.ca.gov/Reference/peb/peb8.pdf.

Demchuk, E., Ruiz, P., Wilson, J., Scinicariello, F., & Pohl, H. (2007). Computational toxicology methods in public health practice. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods. Retrieved from http://gene.hsc.wvu.edu/data/08TMM.pdf.

DeRosa, C. (1997). Validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods. Retrieved from http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/about_docs/validate.pdf.

Fenton, J., & Fenton, J. (2002). Toxicology: a case-oriented approach. New York: CRC Press.

Goldstein, B., Gallo, M. (2001). Paré's law: the second law of toxicology. Toxicological Sciences, 60(2), Retrieved from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/2/194.full.

Hayes, A. (2008). Principles and methods of toxicology. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Hooper, M. (2002). History of toxicology. Retrieved from http://www.tiehh.ttu.edu/mhooper/Docs/1-History-of-Toxicology-06.pdf.

Kamrin, M. (1988). Toxicology: a primer on toxicology principles and applications. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc.

National Drug Control Policy (2000). Drug-related crime. Retrieved from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html.

Ramsland, K. (2004). Forensic toxicology. Criminal Mind, Retrieved from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/toxicology/4.html.

Rawat, A., Gust, K., Deng, Y., Garcia-Reyero, N., & Quinn, M. (2008). Computational toxicology - a state of the science mini review. Toxicological Sciences, 103(1), Retrieved from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/103/1/14.full.

Rudin, N., & Inman, K. (2002). Forensic science timeline. Retrieved from http://www.forensicdna.com/Timeline020702.pdf.

Saferstein, R. (2009). Criminalistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Society of Toxicology (2008). Society of toxicology strategic plan. Retrieved from http://www.toxicology.org/ai/asot/SOTStrategicPlan.pdf.