Scientific imperialism : “The judge made me do it!”

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL Science & Justice Pub Date : 2025-01-25 DOI:10.1016/j.scijus.2025.01.003
Alex Biedermann , Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou
{"title":"Scientific imperialism : “The judge made me do it!”","authors":"Alex Biedermann ,&nbsp;Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou","doi":"10.1016/j.scijus.2025.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This commentary critically reviews a recently published discussion between Hahn et al. (2023) and Berger et al. (2023) regarding recommendations for the use of probabilistic genotyping systems in criminal proceedings, in particular the proper understanding for the evidentiary use – across legal systems – of results produced by such systems and the communication of system outputs to the judiciary. We find that the exchange between Hahn et al. (2023) and Berger et al. (2023) reveals a profound divide between diametrically opposed positions, which is symptomatic of a lack of clarity in some quarters of forensic science about the role of expert witnesses and, in particular, novel forms of so-called <em>machine-generated evidence</em> in the legal process. We argue that in order to prevent scientific practices from inappropriately invading judicial territory, lawyers should take a more active role in scrutinising recommendations and position statements published by members of the forensic science community.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49565,"journal":{"name":"Science & Justice","volume":"65 2","pages":"Pages 119-125"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Justice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030625000139","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This commentary critically reviews a recently published discussion between Hahn et al. (2023) and Berger et al. (2023) regarding recommendations for the use of probabilistic genotyping systems in criminal proceedings, in particular the proper understanding for the evidentiary use – across legal systems – of results produced by such systems and the communication of system outputs to the judiciary. We find that the exchange between Hahn et al. (2023) and Berger et al. (2023) reveals a profound divide between diametrically opposed positions, which is symptomatic of a lack of clarity in some quarters of forensic science about the role of expert witnesses and, in particular, novel forms of so-called machine-generated evidence in the legal process. We argue that in order to prevent scientific practices from inappropriately invading judicial territory, lawyers should take a more active role in scrutinising recommendations and position statements published by members of the forensic science community.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Science & Justice
Science & Justice 医学-病理学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
15.80%
发文量
98
审稿时长
81 days
期刊介绍: Science & Justice provides a forum to promote communication and publication of original articles, reviews and correspondence on subjects that spark debates within the Forensic Science Community and the criminal justice sector. The journal provides a medium whereby all aspects of applying science to legal proceedings can be debated and progressed. Science & Justice is published six times a year, and will be of interest primarily to practising forensic scientists and their colleagues in related fields. It is chiefly concerned with the publication of formal scientific papers, in keeping with its international learned status, but will not accept any article describing experimentation on animals which does not meet strict ethical standards. Promote communication and informed debate within the Forensic Science Community and the criminal justice sector. To promote the publication of learned and original research findings from all areas of the forensic sciences and by so doing to advance the profession. To promote the publication of case based material by way of case reviews. To promote the publication of conference proceedings which are of interest to the forensic science community. To provide a medium whereby all aspects of applying science to legal proceedings can be debated and progressed. To appeal to all those with an interest in the forensic sciences.
期刊最新文献
Scientific imperialism : “The judge made me do it!” The persistence of fibres following a choreographed assault: A quantitative assessment of the influence of physical activity Transfer and persistence of owner DNA on domestic pets Comparison of WET UCIO powder suspension and novel luminescent techniques for latent fingermark detection on the adhesive side of tape Investigations on stainless steel knives using fingermark development processes including Recover Latent Fingerprint Technology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1