Mass Crime Lab Case

Former Massachusetts State umbrage lab chemist, Annie Dookhan, has been indicted on twenty-seven counts of tampering with evidence, perjury, and obstruction of justice after a legal fallout that has jeopardized thousands of drug cases (Smith). Dookhan admitted to dry-labbing (distinguishing a sample is a narcotising based on appearance instead of actually screening), altering test results, and deliberately turned a negative sample into a plus for narcotics a few times. A nonher way in which she tampered with the testing samples was by exaggerating the weight of seized drugs in outrank to cause the accused company to receive harsher penalties.As a result of the chemists actions, some innocent people have served jail time, while deserving criminals were let off the hook. Even though her coworkers and supervisors were suspicious on several occasion throughout the course of several years, she was not caught until 2011 when she admitted to forging a blighters signature on paperwo rk. It was not until this action, that she was finally suspended from her duties (The life-time Case). The next thought that occurs to someone reading this story is Why. What would deliver someone to risk his or her job and credentials?It is hard to empathise what exactly would motivate Annie Dookhan to commit this type of disgust considering that her life was not directly impacted by the fates of the defendants her samples belonged to. Frederick Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory, also known as the two-factor theory, could be applied in this case. Lab executives leadership style Crime labs would be better served if they were operated privately and contracted by states rather than reach out by a police department. There is cause for concern when a state prosecutor has intrinsic ties to the people testing the evidence he or she needs to convict a felon.It is an absolute conflict of participation to have a detestation lab under the control of the police. northeastern Universi ty law professor Daniel Medwed said, There are often implicit pressures on crime lab technicians to help out prosecutors to testify in cases in a way that supports their perceived colleagues in law enforcement (The Living Case). As a result of the outcome of the Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts case, chemists are now required to be present at the trial of the substance they tested in order to be cross-examined on their recommendation (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts).Bearing in mind that their testimony carries a lot of weight in a trial, chemists should remain crystalise so that issues of prejudice or bias arise. Aside from that issue, being draw in be the state police produces problems in relation to the management of the crime lab reporting any errors in testing that may occur. The leaders may feel that exposing problems would only increase a backlog of paperwork and get on testing as a result of an internal investigation. In this case, it does not seem that the leadership was affected by police involvement as the lab was run by the Department of Public Health during the hitch of the incidents.Sources * I was unsure how to cite the case given to us as most of my information is derived from there, and I did not see where Kirkman provided source information. * http//www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-591.pdf* http//www.npr.org/2013/03/14/174269211/mass-crime-lab-scandal-reverberates-across-state