Filtering by
- All Subjects: Forensic Science
- Creators: School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences
- Member of: Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
In this experiment, the viability of gunshot residue (GSR) was examined. This was done through the very rarely researched intersection of forensic firearms analysis and forensic entomology. The question being resolved is if GSR can reliably be detected from secondary evidence transfer of GSR laden carrion onto flies and their larvae. While it is know that secondary and tertiary GSR evidence can be transferred by way of handshakes, no such research has been conducted on flies or their pupae. Findings indicated varying levels of detection of GSR on evidence. GSR could reliably be detected on fly bodies and their legs, but not on their pupae. This research is significant as it provides previously unknown information on this line of research and provides the groundwork for further research on this topic in the future.
Kantianism is a duty-based moral theory in which actions have an intrinsic moral worth. This means certain actions are morally right and other are morally wrong, regardless of the intended or realized consequences. The theory relies on the categorical imperative to judge the morality of certain actions. It states that an action is moral if its maxim can be willed universal law and if it avoids treating people as merely a means. In contrast, Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory which focuses on the consequences of an action in judging moral worth. In Utilitarianism, the morally correct action is the one which will maximize utility; that is to say, the morally right action is the one which will produce the greatest amount of happiness and minimize the amount of pain for the greatest number of people.
After applying these two theories to moral dilemmas facing the U.S. Criminal Justice System, including the appropriate collection of DNA evidence, the use of police deception, and the use of criminal punishments such as solitary confinement or the death penalty, it was clear that Kantianism was the ethical theory best suited for guiding the system in treating people ethically. This is because Kantianism’s focus on the intrinsic moral worth of an action rather than its consequences leaves less room for ambiguity than does Utilitarianism.
Crime has become an inescapable part of being a consumer and viewer in today’s society. The interest in crime, however, could not have just been created by the media or a few specific parties and gained the amount of attention that is has today. Crime has been of interest since ancient times, seen immortalized in art and literature with famous events like the death of Socrates and the assassination of Julius Caesar. However, only more modern advances in media and the growth in consumerism could have led to interest and commodification of crime as we see it today. Landmark cases like Ted Bundy and O.J. Simpson have contributed to the growth of the media landscape, but because of the cyclical nature of the news and consumer cycle, these cases would not differ much in the way that they would be covered today, even with the new methods of disseminating information that we have today, such as social media and news websites that are accessible by everyone. Crime as entertainment has been a product not just of the media and popular culture but also from American consumers who continue to give media and pop culture producers a consumer who wishes to view their content and to continue to further the interest in crime. Media and popular culture are not the only people to blame for the popularization of crime as a product; people in the United States, and globally, are just as much responsible for the creation of crime as entertainment.
Despite the consistent coverage of death on a large scale, the average person is not often exposed to death on a personal level in this day and age. The deaths we see on television or in the movies are not typically connected to people with whom we are attached and so we are not required to work through our emotional response and experience. We are afforded the space to be a casual observer in most of the deaths that we see—we do not need the emotional and mental tools to cope with death on a personal level. While this distance from death may be true of the American whole, it is not entirely generalizable. Professionals in select fields are required to deal with death on a much more regular basis than the average person, including, but not limited to, healthcare and forensic professionals. In these professions, death is a fundamental aspect of the job—either as an expected risk or a necessary precursor. These professionals deal intimately with death, its causes, and its effects on a regular basis because of their chose line of work and, in doing so, are regularly exposed to death and other trauma which has the potential to affect them on both a professional and personal level. In doing so, these professionals are required to, as scientists, analyze and record these experiences with death through the lens of objectivity. These professionals are expected to maintain a professional distance while also being required to give an empathetic response to other’s trauma. The potential effect of this secondary trauma on these professionals is only sharpened by the culture of machismo in these science-based fields that prevents many professionals from expressing emotions regarding their job and getting the social support they need from others within their community.