Forensic science and the myth of adversarial testing
Forensic science and the myth of adversarial testing
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/10345329.2019.1689786
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-30
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Edmond, Gary
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Edmond, Gary
这篇文章解释了为什么对抗式审判并不是一种有效的机制来规范许多形式的法医学证据的采纳和使用。借鉴主流科学观点，并使用涉及潜在指纹证据的报告决定的历史研究，它记录了律师和法官如何从未要求法医科学家正式评估他们的程序或以科学上可辩护的方式表达意见。世纪以来，对潜在指纹证据的每一次挑战都集中在法律的和程序问题上，或者指纹对案件的重要性。关于有效性和科学可靠性的问题（例如，你能做到吗？你有多准确？）直到2015年才被问到。研究表明，法律的方法和实践过去和现在都对潜指纹证据的主流科学观点不敏感。它表明，我们围绕指纹证据（以及隐含的许多其他类型的法医科学和医学）的承认和呈现的做法从根本上是错误的，我们的律师和法官确实在与技术证据作斗争，我们的法律的机构制定了规则和承诺，阻止他们获得主流科学研究和建议的好处。
This article explains why the adversarial trial has not been an effective mechanism for regulating the admission and use of many forms of forensic science evidence. Drawing upon mainstream scientific perspectives, and using an historical study of reported decisions involving latent fingerprint evidence, it documents how lawyers and judges never required forensic scientists to formally evaluate their procedures or express opinions in ways that are scientifically defensible. For more than a century, every challenge to latent fingerprint evidence focused on legal and procedural issues, or the significance of fingerprints for the case. Questions about validity and scientific reliability (eg, Can you do it? How accurate are you?) were not asked until 2015. The study shows that legal approaches and practices were, and are, insensitive to mainstream scientific perspectives on latent fingerprint evidence. It demonstrates that our practices around the admission and presentation of fingerprint evidence (and implicitly many other types of forensic science and medicine) are fundamentally misconceived, that our lawyers and judges genuinely struggle with technical evidence and that our legal institutions have developed rules and commitments that prevent them from receiving the benefits of mainstream scientific research and advice.