The need for reporting standards in forensic science
Authors:
Open Access
- 21 April 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Law, Probability and Risk
- Vol. 14 (2) , 169-173
Abstract
When scientists are asked to assist a court in the evaluation of the results of forensic examinations, a fundamental question arises: what are the generic principles underlying sound inference to which scientists ought to adhere? This question is the object of on-going discussions and diverging opinions in the forensic science community. In this commentary, we discuss this topic from three perspectives. The first pertains to the need for scientists to agree on the generic precepts which evaluative reasoning ought to conform to, and the requirement that these should be stated clearly. Secondly, we shall argue that—as conveyed by the label ‘generic’—these inferential requirements are independent of the forensic area of practice. Thirdly, we maintain that these precepts ought—if encoded—to take the form of a standard, not a mere guideline.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Drawbacks in the scientification of forensic scienceForensic Science International, 2014
- Liberties and constraints of the normative approach to evaluation and decision in forensic science: a discussion towards overcoming some common misconceptionsLaw, Probability and Risk, 2014
- Appraisal of scientific evidence in criminal justice systems: on winds of change and coexisting formatsLaw, Probability and Risk, 2014
- Individualization is dead, long live individualization! Reforms of reporting practices for fingerprint analysis in the United StatesLaw, Probability and Risk, 2014
- Scientific Evidence in Europe -- Admissibility, Evaluation and Equality of ArmsInternational Commentary on Evidence, 2011
- The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification ScienceScience, 2005
- On the Evolution of Analytical Proof, Statistics, and the Use of Experts in EEO Litigation2000
- Probability—The Logic of the LawOxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1993