Forensic Science International Mind and Law最新文献

In the courtroom, jurors are often faced with the task of evaluating complex scientific evidence. However, research suggests that jurors' understanding of complex scientific evidence and its reliability can be prone to error. Therefore, it is important to explore how jurors' comprehension of such evidence can be improved. The present study examined mock jurors' (N = 162) understanding of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and its reliability using a 3 (evidence presentation: basic information vs. in-depth information vs. multimedia information) x 2 (evidence strength: stronger vs. weaker) factorial design. The basic information condition was kept short and served as a baseline measure of participants' knowledge on the subject. Participants read an expert witness testimony about mtDNA evidence in a robbery case and then answered 18 true/false questions to assess their understanding of the mtDNA evidence and its reliability. The strength of evidence did not have a statistically significant effect on jurors' understanding of the evidence or its reliability, and no interaction effects were observed. For the presentation of evidence, by contrast, providing in-depth information on mtDNA evidence significantly improved mock jurors' understanding of both the mtDNA evidence and its reliability. Additional illustrations presented together with the in-depth information did not further improve jurors' scores, although exploratory post-hoc analyses suggested that the multimedia information may have facilitated jurors’ understanding of some aspects of the mtDNA evidence. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Mis-diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is an important public health concern because the disease is treatable, yet can have a disastrous effect on the life of those affected. ADHD is associated with delinquency, criminality, and recidivism; and thus, people living in detention are especially at risk of having ADHD. This study investigated prevalence rates of ADHD diagnosis and treatment in prison. Data were collected in a Swiss prison (n=158). Medical files were screened for ADHD clinical diagnosis and treatment, and participants completed five items assessing ADHD symptomatology (ASRS-5). We computed prevalence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Overall, 1.9% [95% CI: 1.1%–5.8%] of the participants had a clinical diagnosis of ADHD in medical files. Nobody received ADHD treatment. For the self-reported questionnaire, 12.9% [95% CI: 8.5%–19.2%] of the participants met the cut-off and were screened as potentially having ADHD. This study suggested that ADHD was under-diagnosed and under-treated in prison, with a lower prevalence rate according to the medical files of the participants in comparison with self-reports and with the worldwide meta-analytic prevalence rate of 26.2%. ADHD should receive more attention in order to promote health equity between incarcerated and general populations, to reduce health (care) disparities, and to enhance rehabilitation following incarceration.

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is characterised by a range of neurodevelopmental deficits that may increase risks of justice system involvement. Improving our understanding of criminogenic risk factors and particularly the role of informant-rated executive functioning (EF) in predicting the age of offending onset in this clinical population may reduce recidivism and help inform targeted interventions. Participants’ file records (N = 100) were retrospectively reviewed to gather information on criminogenic factors (i.e., out-of-home care, adverse childhood experiences, school disengagement, negative peer association, age of substance use onset), and informant ratings from the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function - 2nd edition (BRIEF2). Scores on the BRIEF2 measure were available for 38 participants upon file review. Across the total sample (N = 100), most participants were male (82%) and of Aboriginal descent (88%). Mean age at the time of assessment was 15.60 years (range = 10–24). After controlling for demographic factors, individual regression analyses showed out-of-home care (B = −0.93, p = .031), negative peer association (B = −0.96, p = .024), and age of substance use onset (B = 0.29, p = .032) predicted the age of offending onset. When all criminogenic factors were entered into the model, only age of substance use onset remained a significant predictor of age of offending onset (B = 0.29, p = .032). Specifically, early substance use initiation resulted in earlier contact with the justice system. Additionally, those with more informant-rated EF difficulties in working memory (B = 0.07, p = .024), task shifting (B = 0.08, p = .011), plan/organise (B = 0.08, p = .014) and inhibition (B = 0.05, p = .048) had a later onset of offending behaviour. Our preliminary findings provide evidence for the vulnerability to justice system involvement in young people with FASD and identified risk factors that can guide prevention and intervention programs.

Psychologists are sometimes asked to provide their expert opinion in court on whether memories of victims, witnesses, or suspects are reliable or not. In this article, we will discuss what expert witnesses can reliably say about memory in the legal arena. We argue that before research on memory can be discussed in legal cases, this research should ideally meet the following three conditions: replicability, generalizability, and practical relevance. Using a fictitious false memory case, we offer a guide to how psychologists should critically examine whether a particular segment of memory research is in line with these three conditions. We show that the area of false memory broadly fits these conditions but that for areas such as eyewitness identification and false confessions, there is limited discussion on which effect sizes are of interest in legal cases. We propose several recommendations that expert witnesses can use when they evaluate the validity of statements such as working with scenarios (e.g., statements are valid or not). Being transparent about the limits and strengths of memory research will assist triers of fact in their decision-making process.