刑事司法系统中种族对法医学决策影响的系统回顾与元分析:对法医学人类学的启示

Q4 Environmental Science Humans and Nature Pub Date : 2023-08-25 DOI:10.3390/humans3030017
An-Di Yim, Nicholas V. Passalacqua
{"title":"刑事司法系统中种族对法医学决策影响的系统回顾与元分析:对法医学人类学的启示","authors":"An-Di Yim, Nicholas V. Passalacqua","doi":"10.3390/humans3030017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Instances of racial disparities are well documented in the United States’ criminal justice system. This study reviewed the literature and conducted quantitative analyses on the role of race in forensic decision making among practitioners and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system. We hypothesized that Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals will be significantly more likely to be associated with adverse outcomes than White individuals. A search strategy was developed and registered before the study commenced. Quantitative data were extracted from eligible studies to estimate the pooled effect size (odds ratio) for the effects of race. A final sample of 11 data sources (published study or dataset) was identified. Decision making by all stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including forensic practitioners, case investigators, and juries were evaluated in these studies. Two datasets evaluated the decision-making process involving forensic psychology or psychiatry, three focused on forensic evidence, four on forensic pathology, one involved forensic anthropology cases, and one involved clinical forensic medicine cases. The pooled odds ratio was estimated to be 1.10 (95% confidence interval: 0.67–1.81), indicating a trivial or negligible effect of race (i.e., BIPOC individuals were no more likely to be associated with adverse outcomes given the current evidence). Importantly, the results of this study do not indicate that bias or disparity related to race does not exist in forensic decision making in the criminal justice system. More research into systemic bias in forensic decision making, especially in relation to race, is needed. Forensic anthropologists are uniquely positioned to study and address racial disparities in the criminal justice system involving forensic science because of its interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary nature. This study highlights the need for further research and advocates for forensic anthropologists to be more involved in the study of the science and the impacts of forensic science rather than focusing on methodological advancement.","PeriodicalId":35511,"journal":{"name":"Humans and Nature","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Race in the Criminal Justice System with Respect to Forensic Science Decision Making: Implications for Forensic Anthropology\",\"authors\":\"An-Di Yim, Nicholas V. Passalacqua\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/humans3030017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Instances of racial disparities are well documented in the United States’ criminal justice system. This study reviewed the literature and conducted quantitative analyses on the role of race in forensic decision making among practitioners and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system. We hypothesized that Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals will be significantly more likely to be associated with adverse outcomes than White individuals. A search strategy was developed and registered before the study commenced. Quantitative data were extracted from eligible studies to estimate the pooled effect size (odds ratio) for the effects of race. A final sample of 11 data sources (published study or dataset) was identified. Decision making by all stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including forensic practitioners, case investigators, and juries were evaluated in these studies. Two datasets evaluated the decision-making process involving forensic psychology or psychiatry, three focused on forensic evidence, four on forensic pathology, one involved forensic anthropology cases, and one involved clinical forensic medicine cases. The pooled odds ratio was estimated to be 1.10 (95% confidence interval: 0.67–1.81), indicating a trivial or negligible effect of race (i.e., BIPOC individuals were no more likely to be associated with adverse outcomes given the current evidence). Importantly, the results of this study do not indicate that bias or disparity related to race does not exist in forensic decision making in the criminal justice system. More research into systemic bias in forensic decision making, especially in relation to race, is needed. Forensic anthropologists are uniquely positioned to study and address racial disparities in the criminal justice system involving forensic science because of its interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary nature. This study highlights the need for further research and advocates for forensic anthropologists to be more involved in the study of the science and the impacts of forensic science rather than focusing on methodological advancement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35511,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Humans and Nature\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Humans and Nature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/humans3030017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Environmental Science\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Humans and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/humans3030017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国的刑事司法系统中,种族差异的例子有据可查。本研究回顾了文献,并对刑事司法系统中从业者和其他利益相关者在法医决策中的种族作用进行了定量分析。我们假设黑人、土著和有色人种(BIPOC)个体比白人个体更有可能出现不良后果。研究开始前,已制订并登记了搜寻策略。从符合条件的研究中提取定量数据,以估计种族影响的综合效应大小(优势比)。确定了11个数据源(已发表的研究或数据集)的最终样本。在这些研究中,对刑事司法系统中所有利益相关者(包括法医从业人员、案件调查员和陪审团)的决策进行了评估。2个数据集评估了涉及法医心理学或精神病学的决策过程,3个侧重于法医证据,4个侧重于法医病理学,1个涉及法医人类学案例,1个涉及临床法医学案例。合并优势比估计为1.10(95%置信区间:0.67-1.81),表明种族的影响微不足道或可以忽略不计(即,根据目前的证据,BIPOC个体不太可能与不良结果相关)。重要的是,本研究的结果并没有表明在刑事司法系统的法医决策中不存在与种族有关的偏见或差异。需要对法医决策中的系统性偏见,特别是与种族有关的偏见进行更多的研究。由于法医学的跨学科和多学科性质,法医人类学家在研究和解决刑事司法系统中涉及法医学的种族差异方面具有独特的地位。这项研究强调了进一步研究的必要性,并倡导法医人类学家更多地参与科学研究和法医科学的影响,而不是专注于方法上的进步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Race in the Criminal Justice System with Respect to Forensic Science Decision Making: Implications for Forensic Anthropology
Instances of racial disparities are well documented in the United States’ criminal justice system. This study reviewed the literature and conducted quantitative analyses on the role of race in forensic decision making among practitioners and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system. We hypothesized that Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) individuals will be significantly more likely to be associated with adverse outcomes than White individuals. A search strategy was developed and registered before the study commenced. Quantitative data were extracted from eligible studies to estimate the pooled effect size (odds ratio) for the effects of race. A final sample of 11 data sources (published study or dataset) was identified. Decision making by all stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including forensic practitioners, case investigators, and juries were evaluated in these studies. Two datasets evaluated the decision-making process involving forensic psychology or psychiatry, three focused on forensic evidence, four on forensic pathology, one involved forensic anthropology cases, and one involved clinical forensic medicine cases. The pooled odds ratio was estimated to be 1.10 (95% confidence interval: 0.67–1.81), indicating a trivial or negligible effect of race (i.e., BIPOC individuals were no more likely to be associated with adverse outcomes given the current evidence). Importantly, the results of this study do not indicate that bias or disparity related to race does not exist in forensic decision making in the criminal justice system. More research into systemic bias in forensic decision making, especially in relation to race, is needed. Forensic anthropologists are uniquely positioned to study and address racial disparities in the criminal justice system involving forensic science because of its interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary nature. This study highlights the need for further research and advocates for forensic anthropologists to be more involved in the study of the science and the impacts of forensic science rather than focusing on methodological advancement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Humans and Nature
Humans and Nature Environmental Science-Environmental Science (all)
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Local Cheese: The Affective Economy of Food Embeddedness in the Italian Western Alps Speaking of Sex: Critical Reflections for Forensic Anthropologists Mourning Glaciers: Animism Reconsidered through Ritual and Sensorial Relationships with Mountain Entities in the Alps Ethnologist as Foreign Body: A Systemic Explanation A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Race in the Criminal Justice System with Respect to Forensic Science Decision Making: Implications for Forensic Anthropology
×
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