TY - JOUR
T1 - Opening the Scientific Experts Black Box
T2 - ‘Critical Trust’ as a Reformative Principle in Criminal Evidence
AU - Carr, Sophie
AU - Piasecki, Emma
AU - Tully, Gillian
AU - Wilson, Tim
PY - 2016/10
Y1 - 2016/10
N2 - The work of forensic scientists, by providing specialist assistance beyond the normal experience
or knowledge of the factfinders, can be elusive to the law’s traditional probative safeguards.
The work of forensic scientists, by providing specialist assistance beyond the normal experience or knowledge of the factfinders, can be elusive to the law’s traditional probative safeguards. These safeguards, in any case, only apply to the small proportion of such evidence actually tested in court. The specialist nature of the scientific work and the knowledge and understanding needed by users with a non-scientific background makes trust in forensic science problematic if conceptualised in binary terms. A systematic review of the development of the quality controls for the production and use of expert scientific evidence demonstrates that critical trust, as an organising principle, does offer a continuum (ranging from scepticism to acceptance) for assessing the reliability and use of forensic science evidence. Despite progressive reform in forensic science, significant risks remain. These risks are both (i) scientific, including the fragmentation of scientific interpretation and the assurance that all providers and/or processes can meet the necessary standards, and (ii) professional, ranging from the timely provision of information to the ability of counsel to critically test the evidence in a manner intelligible to the factfinders.
AB - The work of forensic scientists, by providing specialist assistance beyond the normal experience
or knowledge of the factfinders, can be elusive to the law’s traditional probative safeguards.
The work of forensic scientists, by providing specialist assistance beyond the normal experience or knowledge of the factfinders, can be elusive to the law’s traditional probative safeguards. These safeguards, in any case, only apply to the small proportion of such evidence actually tested in court. The specialist nature of the scientific work and the knowledge and understanding needed by users with a non-scientific background makes trust in forensic science problematic if conceptualised in binary terms. A systematic review of the development of the quality controls for the production and use of expert scientific evidence demonstrates that critical trust, as an organising principle, does offer a continuum (ranging from scepticism to acceptance) for assessing the reliability and use of forensic science evidence. Despite progressive reform in forensic science, significant risks remain. These risks are both (i) scientific, including the fragmentation of scientific interpretation and the assurance that all providers and/or processes can meet the necessary standards, and (ii) professional, ranging from the timely provision of information to the ability of counsel to critically test the evidence in a manner intelligible to the factfinders.
KW - Forensic science
KW - expert evidence
KW - critical trust
KW - standard
KW - reliability
U2 - 10.1177/0022018316669220
DO - 10.1177/0022018316669220
M3 - Article
VL - 80
SP - 364
EP - 386
JO - The Journal of Criminal Law
JF - The Journal of Criminal Law
SN - 0022-0183
IS - 5
ER -