"The National Forensic Service has released its findings."
This phrase is commonly encountered in legal reporting. Whether in murder cases, industrial accidents, or medical mishaps, the results from the National Forensic Service (NFS) often mark a critical turning point in investigations. In today's world, DNA evidence, digital forensics, and CCTV analysis have become stronger than confessions.
However, a question arises: while the NFS is a familiar state institution, why is it rare to see private forensic science agencies or forensic experts vigorously contesting cases in court?
Yoon Oe-chul, a senior advisor at the law firm Jipyeong, offered insights into this question, linking it to the judicial system. A forensic science expert who led the introduction of profiling in South Korea during his time with the police, Yoon's diagnosis was surprising: for forensic science to advance further, a genuine trial-centered principle must be established, rather than merely increasing equipment.
South Korea aims for a trial-centered principle under its criminal procedure law. Yet, in practice, records and results from police and prosecution investigations still heavily influence trials. In contrast, in countries like the United States, the courtroom serves as a battleground for evidence. Prosecutors present DNA findings or forensic results, which defense attorneys can challenge through expert witnesses, allowing forensic scientists and forensic experts to voice their opinions in court.
Ultimately, the difference lies in 'demand.'
For experts to thrive, there must be a market seeking their services. A structure that actively utilizes expert opinions in trials is essential for forensic scientists, digital forensic experts, and medical evaluators to establish their professions. This would also lead to the emergence of research institutions and companies. Yoon emphasized, "Demand must be created for supply to follow."
Without demand, experts are scarce. Yoon cited forensic scientists as an example. The physical and mental burdens of conducting autopsies to uncover the truth are significant. If they must endure much lower compensation than general practitioners despite holding medical licenses, who would willingly choose forensic science? He pointed out that in a system where only a sense of mission sustains professionals, it is challenging to cultivate talent.
Of course, the trial-centered principle is not a panacea. An increase in expert evaluations can prolong trials and raise costs. There must also be an expansion of judges and court personnel. The efficiency of the current structure, which aims to resolve cases swiftly, cannot be overlooked.
Nevertheless, there are benefits. A structure where private experts re-evaluate evidence presented by the state and publicly contest the results in court increases the likelihood of arriving at the substantive truth. Most importantly, it broadens the opportunities for the wrongfully accused to prove their innocence. The goal of the criminal justice system is not merely to expedite cases but to reach the correct conclusions.
Another noteworthy aspect is that this does not remain confined to judicial procedures. As the private forensic science market grows, encompassing medical evaluations, digital forensics, and accident reconstructions, the number of professionals increases, and related industries expand. Changes in the legal field could lead to new jobs and technological competitiveness, indicating that the system can foster industry growth.
Our forensic science has already reached a considerable level. What is now needed is not just competition to enhance the capabilities of state institutions but an ecosystem that extends expertise to the private sector. A country where both state and private experts collaboratively verify evidence is closer to a mature judicial system than one where only the NFS is strong.
The trial-centered principle is not merely a call to change trial procedures. It is a foundational system aimed at reducing wrongful accusations, nurturing experts, and broadening the base of forensic science. The next phase of forensic science should begin not with more equipment but with more vigorous courtroom battles.
This phrase is commonly encountered in legal reporting. Whether in murder cases, industrial accidents, or medical mishaps, the results from the National Forensic Service (NFS) often mark a critical turning point in investigations. In today's world, DNA evidence, digital forensics, and CCTV analysis have become stronger than confessions.
However, a question arises: while the NFS is a familiar state institution, why is it rare to see private forensic science agencies or forensic experts vigorously contesting cases in court?
Yoon Oe-chul, a senior advisor at the law firm Jipyeong, offered insights into this question, linking it to the judicial system. A forensic science expert who led the introduction of profiling in South Korea during his time with the police, Yoon's diagnosis was surprising: for forensic science to advance further, a genuine trial-centered principle must be established, rather than merely increasing equipment.
South Korea aims for a trial-centered principle under its criminal procedure law. Yet, in practice, records and results from police and prosecution investigations still heavily influence trials. In contrast, in countries like the United States, the courtroom serves as a battleground for evidence. Prosecutors present DNA findings or forensic results, which defense attorneys can challenge through expert witnesses, allowing forensic scientists and forensic experts to voice their opinions in court.
Ultimately, the difference lies in 'demand.'
For experts to thrive, there must be a market seeking their services. A structure that actively utilizes expert opinions in trials is essential for forensic scientists, digital forensic experts, and medical evaluators to establish their professions. This would also lead to the emergence of research institutions and companies. Yoon emphasized, "Demand must be created for supply to follow."
Without demand, experts are scarce. Yoon cited forensic scientists as an example. The physical and mental burdens of conducting autopsies to uncover the truth are significant. If they must endure much lower compensation than general practitioners despite holding medical licenses, who would willingly choose forensic science? He pointed out that in a system where only a sense of mission sustains professionals, it is challenging to cultivate talent.
Of course, the trial-centered principle is not a panacea. An increase in expert evaluations can prolong trials and raise costs. There must also be an expansion of judges and court personnel. The efficiency of the current structure, which aims to resolve cases swiftly, cannot be overlooked.
Nevertheless, there are benefits. A structure where private experts re-evaluate evidence presented by the state and publicly contest the results in court increases the likelihood of arriving at the substantive truth. Most importantly, it broadens the opportunities for the wrongfully accused to prove their innocence. The goal of the criminal justice system is not merely to expedite cases but to reach the correct conclusions.
Another noteworthy aspect is that this does not remain confined to judicial procedures. As the private forensic science market grows, encompassing medical evaluations, digital forensics, and accident reconstructions, the number of professionals increases, and related industries expand. Changes in the legal field could lead to new jobs and technological competitiveness, indicating that the system can foster industry growth.
Our forensic science has already reached a considerable level. What is now needed is not just competition to enhance the capabilities of state institutions but an ecosystem that extends expertise to the private sector. A country where both state and private experts collaboratively verify evidence is closer to a mature judicial system than one where only the NFS is strong.
The trial-centered principle is not merely a call to change trial procedures. It is a foundational system aimed at reducing wrongful accusations, nurturing experts, and broadening the base of forensic science. The next phase of forensic science should begin not with more equipment but with more vigorous courtroom battles.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.