Appraisal of scientific evidence in criminal justice systems: on winds of change and coexisting formats
Author:
- 6 March 2014
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Law, Probability and Risk
- Vol. 13 (2) , 105-115
Abstract
Interpretation concepts of scientific evidence have always been under discussion among forensic scientists and among all stakeholders of criminal proceedings in general. It seems that this issue has been attracting more attention since the introduction of the case assessment and interpretation (CAI) model in the late nineties and even more since the release of the National Academies of Science report ‘Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States’ in 2009. Following the debates there is, however, a certain danger of overcompensation if the input of stakeholders from e.g. inquisitorial criminal systems is under-represented. Without doubt, a likelihood ratio-based approach can be a powerful tool assisting in logically complex case assessments and judicial considerations of evidence. However, the application of this approach should be an option rather than an international standard as it concerns the concept of the stakeholder’s roles more profoundly in some countries than in others and may possibly take some countries by surprise. In the following article, this is discussed and some proposals are put forward which appear suitable to strengthen the evaluation of forensic results by the principle of methodological pluralism rather than by an exclusive and compulsory commitment to only one approach.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Forensic scientists’ conclusions: How readable are they for non-scientist report-users?Forensic Science International, 2013
- E-learning initiatives in forensic interpretation: Report on experiences from current projects and outlookForensic Science International, 2013
- An introduction to a debateLaw, Probability and Risk, 2012
- Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionalsPsychology, Crime & Law, 2012
- Expressing evaluative opinions: A position statementScience & Justice, 2011
- Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinionScience & Justice, 2009
- More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositionsScience & Justice, 2000
- A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in caseworkScience & Justice, 1998
- A model for case assessment and interpretationScience & Justice, 1998
- The Use of Statistics in CriminalisticsThe Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1964