Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence?
Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence?
复制标题
黄金与白金：陪审员是否认识到 DNA 证据相对于其他类型的法医证据的优越性和局限性？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Krauss
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Joel D. Lieberman;Courtney A. Carrell;Terance D. Miethe;D. Krauss
在一系列研究中，作者审查了（a）公众对法医科学证据的看法，（B）与其他形式的法医鉴定证据相比，DNA证据的相对影响，以及（c）针对DNA证词局限性的交叉询问的影响。在研究1和2中，本科生和代表陪审员都认为DNA是与其他类型的法医证据相比最准确和最有说服力的证据。这一发现在不同媒体对科学证据报道的个体样本中是一致的。实验结果进一步揭示了DNA证据在判决决定中的强大影响力，无论犯罪类型如何，也无论证据是有罪还是无罪。在研究2和研究3中，基于DNA的专家证词对陪审员的决策产生了强烈的影响，即使在交叉询问之后。然而，在研究3中，DNA证据的可靠性和交叉询问的重点的相互作用在一定程度上减轻了这些影响。讨论了在法律的决定中使用DNA和其他科学证据对公共政策和实践的影响。
In a series of studies, the authors examined (a) public perceptions concerning forensic scientific evidence, (b) the relative influence attributed to DNA evidence compared to other forms of forensic identification evidence, and (c) the impact of cross-examination addressing the limitations of DNA testimony. In Studies 1 and 2, both undergraduate students and representative jurors rated DNA as the most accurate and persuasive type of evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence. This finding was consistent across samples of individuals with varied exposure to media coverage of scientific evidence. Experimental results further revealed the strong influence of DNA evidence in verdict decisions regardless of the type of crime or whether the evidence was incriminating or exculpatory. In Studies 2 and 3, DNA-based expert testimony demonstrated strong effects on juror decision-making even after cross-examination. These effects were mitigated to some extent in Study 3, however, by the interaction of the reliability of DNA evidence and the focus of cross-examination. The implications regarding the use of DNA and other scientific evidence for public policy and practice in legal decisions are discussed.