犯罪现场调查--犯罪现场SI:比较改进犯罪现场的几种调查方法

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL Science & Justice Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.1016/j.scijus.2023.11.009
Anna S. Knes , Madeleine de Gruijter , Matthijs C. Zuidberg , Christianne J. de Poot
{"title":"犯罪现场调查--犯罪现场SI:比较改进犯罪现场的几种调查方法","authors":"Anna S. Knes ,&nbsp;Madeleine de Gruijter ,&nbsp;Matthijs C. Zuidberg ,&nbsp;Christianne J. de Poot","doi":"10.1016/j.scijus.2023.11.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Crime scene investigations are highly complex environments that require the CSI to engage in complex decision-making. CSIs must rely on personal experience, context information, and scientific knowledge about the fundamental principles of forensic science to both find and correctly interpret ambiguous traces and accurately reconstruct a scene. Differences in CSI decision making can arise in multiple stages of a crime scene investigation. Given its crucial role in forensic investigation, CSI decision-making must be further studied to understand how differences may arise during the stages of a crime scene investigation. The following exploratory research project is a first step at comparing how crime scene investigations of violent robberies are conducted between 25 crime scene investigators from nine countries across the world.</p><p>Through a mock crime scene and semi-structured interview, we observed that CSIs have adopted a variety of investigation approaches. The results show that CSIs have different working strategies and make different decisions when it comes to the construction of relevant hypotheses, their search strategy, and the collection of traces. These different decisions may, amongst other factors, be due to the use of prior information, a CSI’s knowledge and experience, and the perceived goal of their investigation. We suggest the development of more practical guidelines to aid CSIs through a hypothetico-deductive reasoning process, where (a) CSIs are supported in the correct use of contextual information, (b) outside knowledge and expertise are integrated into this process, and (c) CSIs are guided in the evaluation of the utility of their traces.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49565,"journal":{"name":"Science & Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030623001284/pdfft?md5=05b28bcdd885ab713e9d9383afc047ef&pid=1-s2.0-S1355030623001284-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CSI-CSI: Comparing several investigative approaches toward crime scene improvement\",\"authors\":\"Anna S. Knes ,&nbsp;Madeleine de Gruijter ,&nbsp;Matthijs C. Zuidberg ,&nbsp;Christianne J. de Poot\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.scijus.2023.11.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Crime scene investigations are highly complex environments that require the CSI to engage in complex decision-making. CSIs must rely on personal experience, context information, and scientific knowledge about the fundamental principles of forensic science to both find and correctly interpret ambiguous traces and accurately reconstruct a scene. Differences in CSI decision making can arise in multiple stages of a crime scene investigation. Given its crucial role in forensic investigation, CSI decision-making must be further studied to understand how differences may arise during the stages of a crime scene investigation. The following exploratory research project is a first step at comparing how crime scene investigations of violent robberies are conducted between 25 crime scene investigators from nine countries across the world.</p><p>Through a mock crime scene and semi-structured interview, we observed that CSIs have adopted a variety of investigation approaches. The results show that CSIs have different working strategies and make different decisions when it comes to the construction of relevant hypotheses, their search strategy, and the collection of traces. These different decisions may, amongst other factors, be due to the use of prior information, a CSI’s knowledge and experience, and the perceived goal of their investigation. We suggest the development of more practical guidelines to aid CSIs through a hypothetico-deductive reasoning process, where (a) CSIs are supported in the correct use of contextual information, (b) outside knowledge and expertise are integrated into this process, and (c) CSIs are guided in the evaluation of the utility of their traces.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science & Justice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030623001284/pdfft?md5=05b28bcdd885ab713e9d9383afc047ef&pid=1-s2.0-S1355030623001284-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science & Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030623001284\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Justice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030623001284","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

摘要

犯罪现场调查是一个高度复杂的环境,需要犯罪现场调查人员做出复杂的决策。犯罪现场调查人员必须依靠个人经验、背景信息和有关法医学基本原理的科学知识,才能发现并正确解释模糊痕迹,准确重建现场。在犯罪现场调查的多个阶段都可能出现 CSI 决策差异。鉴于 CSI 在法证调查中的关键作用,必须对 CSI 的决策进行进一步研究,以了解在犯罪现场调查的各个阶段会出现怎样的差异。通过模拟犯罪现场和半结构式访谈,我们观察到犯罪现场调查人员采用了多种调查方法。结果表明,犯罪现场调查人员在构建相关假设、搜索策略和收集痕迹方面有不同的工作策略,并做出不同的决定。这些不同的决定,除其他因素外,可能是由于使用了先前的信息、犯罪现场调查人员的知识和经验,以及他们认为的调查目标。我们建议制定更实用的指南,通过假设-演绎推理过程帮助 CSI,其中:(a) 支持 CSI 正确使用背景信息;(b) 将外部知识和专业知识纳入这一过程;(c) 指导 CSI 评估其痕迹的效用。
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
CSI-CSI: Comparing several investigative approaches toward crime scene improvement

Crime scene investigations are highly complex environments that require the CSI to engage in complex decision-making. CSIs must rely on personal experience, context information, and scientific knowledge about the fundamental principles of forensic science to both find and correctly interpret ambiguous traces and accurately reconstruct a scene. Differences in CSI decision making can arise in multiple stages of a crime scene investigation. Given its crucial role in forensic investigation, CSI decision-making must be further studied to understand how differences may arise during the stages of a crime scene investigation. The following exploratory research project is a first step at comparing how crime scene investigations of violent robberies are conducted between 25 crime scene investigators from nine countries across the world.

Through a mock crime scene and semi-structured interview, we observed that CSIs have adopted a variety of investigation approaches. The results show that CSIs have different working strategies and make different decisions when it comes to the construction of relevant hypotheses, their search strategy, and the collection of traces. These different decisions may, amongst other factors, be due to the use of prior information, a CSI’s knowledge and experience, and the perceived goal of their investigation. We suggest the development of more practical guidelines to aid CSIs through a hypothetico-deductive reasoning process, where (a) CSIs are supported in the correct use of contextual information, (b) outside knowledge and expertise are integrated into this process, and (c) CSIs are guided in the evaluation of the utility of their traces.

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
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
Vaginal drainage of semen in underwear: A forensic study The efficacy of Diamond™ nucleic acid dye-stained cell counting techniques for forensic application The effects of fingerprinting agents on the stable isotope ratios of polyethylene films IFC: Editorial Board The impact of accelerant facilitated fire on blood detection and the efficacy of subsequent soot removal methods
×
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