The Experts below are selected from a list of 7860 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jonathan J. Koehler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how trial judges should think about Forensic science evidence
2018Co-Authors: Jonathan J. KoehlerAbstract:It is undeniable that there are serious problems with the presentation of Forensic science evidence in U.S. courtrooms. Comprehensive studies by scientific bodies find that many Forensic Sciences have not been validated and none have provided sufficiently rigorous scientific evidence that supports a claim of low rates of error. However, trial courts and appellate courts have largely ignored these problems and have done nothing to motivate Forensic scientists to improve the scientific quality of their courtroom testimony. This paper provides trial judges with guidance on how they should think about and evaluate the reliability of Forensic science evidence.
-
An Empirical Research Agenda for the Forensic Sciences
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2016Co-Authors: Jonathan J. Koehler, John B. MeixnerAbstract:After the National Academy of Sciences issued a stunning report in 2009 on the unscientific state of many Forensic science subfields, Forensic science has undergone internal and external scrutiny that it had managed to avoid for decades. Although some reform efforts are underway, Forensic science writ large has yet to embrace and settle upon an empirical research agenda that addresses knowledge gaps pertaining to the reliability of its methods. Our paper addresses this problem by proposing a preliminary set of fourteen empirical studies for the Forensic Sciences. Following a brief discussion of the courtroom treatment of Forensic science evidence, we sketch a series of studies that should be conducted to increase understanding of what Forensic examiners are doing, how accurately they are doing it, and how cognitive bias may affect the work product. We also propose several studies that examine how the specific questions examiners are asked might affect the validity and persuasiveness of examiners’ responses. We conclude by affirming the importance of developing a research culture within the Forensic Sciences that includes a commitment to conducting, participating in, and relying upon high quality empirical research.
-
Forensics or fauxrensics ascertaining accuracy in the Forensic Sciences
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Jonathan J. KoehlerAbstract:Forensic science – which includes such techniques as DNA analysis, fingerprint examination, and firearms comparison – plays a crucial role in our criminal justice system by helping to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. However, our confidence in Forensic science conclusions must be tempered by the odds that those conclusions are wrong. What are those odds? Nobody knows the answer because no disinterested researchers have conducted the appropriate studies in any of the Forensic science disciplines. This is a serious problem because, without this information, legal decision makers cannot properly assess the validity or probative value of Forensic evidence. In this paper, I examine the institutional forces and misunderstandings that are responsible for our ignorance about the accuracy of Forensic science conclusions. I then recommend a new type of proficiency testing regimen (Type II proficiency testing) that is designed to measure error rates under appropriate test conditions in the various Forensic subfields. Unless and until such studies are undertaken, legal decision makers will continue to fly blind when it comes to assessing the reliability of a reported Forensic match.
-
An Empirical Research Agenda for the Forensic Sciences
2016Co-Authors: Jonathan J. Koehler, John B. MeixnerAbstract:After the National Academy of Sciences issued a stunning report in 2009 on the unscientific state of many Forensic science subfields, Forensic science has undergone internal and external scrutiny that it had managed to avoid for decades. Although some reform efforts are underway, Forensic science writ large has yet to embrace and settle upon an empirical research agenda that addresses knowledge gaps pertaining to the reliability of its methods. Our paper addresses this problem by proposing a preliminary set of 14 empirical studies for the Forensic Sciences. Following a brief discussion of the courtroom treatment of Forensic science evidence, we sketch a series of studies that should be conducted to increase our understanding of what Forensic examiners are doing, how accurately they are doing it, and how cognitive bias may affect the work product. We also propose several studies that examine how the specific questions examiners are asked might affect the validity and persuasiveness of examiners’ responses. We conclude by affirming the importance of developing a research culture within the Forensic Sciences that includes a commitment to conducting, participating in, and relying upon high quality empirical research.
-
Intuitive Error Rate Estimates for the Forensic Sciences
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2016Co-Authors: Jonathan J. KoehlerAbstract:There is a risk of error associated with all Forensic science conclusions. However, no proper studies have been conducted in any of the Forensic Sciences to estimate the rate at which Forensic science conclusions are wrong. As a result, jurors and other consumers of Forensic science information are left to speculate about what those error rates might be. The present paper provides data from an online study (n = 210) about what jury-eligible people (“jurors”) think the false positive error rates are for five types of Forensic science evidence (DNA, fingerprints, bite marks, microscopic hair, and handwriting). Jurors’ median estimates range from a high of 1 in 100,000 (handwriting) to a low of 1 in 1,000,000,000 (DNA). The significance of these estimated false positive error rates is discussed.
John B. Meixner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An Empirical Research Agenda for the Forensic Sciences
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2016Co-Authors: Jonathan J. Koehler, John B. MeixnerAbstract:After the National Academy of Sciences issued a stunning report in 2009 on the unscientific state of many Forensic science subfields, Forensic science has undergone internal and external scrutiny that it had managed to avoid for decades. Although some reform efforts are underway, Forensic science writ large has yet to embrace and settle upon an empirical research agenda that addresses knowledge gaps pertaining to the reliability of its methods. Our paper addresses this problem by proposing a preliminary set of fourteen empirical studies for the Forensic Sciences. Following a brief discussion of the courtroom treatment of Forensic science evidence, we sketch a series of studies that should be conducted to increase understanding of what Forensic examiners are doing, how accurately they are doing it, and how cognitive bias may affect the work product. We also propose several studies that examine how the specific questions examiners are asked might affect the validity and persuasiveness of examiners’ responses. We conclude by affirming the importance of developing a research culture within the Forensic Sciences that includes a commitment to conducting, participating in, and relying upon high quality empirical research.
-
An Empirical Research Agenda for the Forensic Sciences
2016Co-Authors: Jonathan J. Koehler, John B. MeixnerAbstract:After the National Academy of Sciences issued a stunning report in 2009 on the unscientific state of many Forensic science subfields, Forensic science has undergone internal and external scrutiny that it had managed to avoid for decades. Although some reform efforts are underway, Forensic science writ large has yet to embrace and settle upon an empirical research agenda that addresses knowledge gaps pertaining to the reliability of its methods. Our paper addresses this problem by proposing a preliminary set of 14 empirical studies for the Forensic Sciences. Following a brief discussion of the courtroom treatment of Forensic science evidence, we sketch a series of studies that should be conducted to increase our understanding of what Forensic examiners are doing, how accurately they are doing it, and how cognitive bias may affect the work product. We also propose several studies that examine how the specific questions examiners are asked might affect the validity and persuasiveness of examiners’ responses. We conclude by affirming the importance of developing a research culture within the Forensic Sciences that includes a commitment to conducting, participating in, and relying upon high quality empirical research.
Boaz Sangero - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
safety from flawed Forensic Sciences evidence
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Boaz SangeroAbstract:This article addresses the way to safety in the context of Forensic Sciences evidence. After presenting the current lack of safety, which this article terms “unsafety,” it raises some possible safety measures to contend with this. The suggestions presented are grounded on two bases: first, the specific analysis of each type of evidence in line with the most recent research on the subject; and second, modern safety theory and its application to the criminal justice system.
-
safety from flawed Forensic Sciences evidence
Georgia State University law review, 2018Co-Authors: Boaz SangeroAbstract:This article addresses the way to safety in the context of Forensic Sciences evidence. After presenting the current lack of safety, which I term "unsafety,"
DA Stoney - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The need for a research culture in the Forensic Sciences
UCLA Law Review, 2011Co-Authors: DA StoneyAbstract:The methods, techniques, and reliability of the Forensic Sciences in general, and the pattern identification disciplines in particular, have faced significant scrutiny in recent years. Critics have attacked the scientific basis for the assumptions and claims made by Forensic scientists both in and out of the courtroom. Defenders have emphasized courts' longstanding acceptance of Forensic science evidence, the relative dearth of known errors, and practitioners' skill and experience. This Article reflects an effort made by a averse group of participants in these debates, including law professors, academics from several disciplines, and practicing Forensic scientists, to find and explore common ground. To what extent do the Forensic Sciences need to change in order to place themselves on an appropriately secure foundation in the twentyfirst century? We all firmly agree that the traditional Forensic Sciences in general, and the pattern identification disciplines, sua as fingerprint, firearm, toobnark, and handwriting identification evidence in particukr, do not cunently possess-and absolutely must develop-a well-established scientific foundation. This can only be accomplished through the development of a research culture that permeates the entire field of Forensic science. A research culture, we argue, must be grounded in the values of empiricism, transparency, and a commitment to an ongoing critical perspective. The Forensic science disciplines need to substantially increase their commitment to evidence from empirical research as the basis for their conclusions. Sound research, rather than experience, training, and longstanding use, must become the central method by which assertions are justified. In this Article, we describe the underdeveloped research culture in the non-DNA Forensic Sciences, offer suggestions for how it might be improved, and explain why it matters.
Pierre Chauvin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
multivariate methods for the analysis of complex and big data in Forensic Sciences application to age estimation in living persons
Forensic Science International, 2016Co-Authors: Thomas Lefevre, Patrick Chariot, Pierre ChauvinAbstract:Researchers handle increasingly higher dimensional datasets, with many variables to explore. Such datasets pose several problems, since they are difficult to handle and present unexpected features. As dimensionality increases, classical statistical analysis becomes inoperative. Variables can present redundancy, and the reduction of dataset dimensionality to its lowest possible value is often needed. Principal components analysis (PCA) has proven useful to reduce dimensionality but present several shortcomings. As others, Forensic Sciences will face the issues specific related to an evergrowing quantity of data to be integrated. Age estimation in living persons, an unsolved problem so far, could benefit from the integration of various sources of data, e.g. clinical, dental and radiological data. We present here novel multivariate techniques (nonlinear dimensionality reduction techniques, NLDR), applied to a theoretical example. Results were compared to those of PCA. NLDR techniques were then applied to clinical, dental and radiological data (13 variables) used for age estimation. The correlation dimension of these data was estimated. NLDR techniques outperformed PCA results. They showed that two living persons sharing similar characteristics may present rather different estimated ages. Moreover, data presented a very high informational redundancy, i.e. a correlation dimension of 2. NLDR techniques should be used with or preferred to PCA techniques to analyze complex and big data. Data routinely used for age estimation may not be considered suitable for this purpose. How integrating other data or approaches could improve age estimation in living persons is still uncertain.