Current studentsExisting staffContact us
 

Model forensic science

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorEdmond, G.
dc.contributor.authorFound, B.
dc.contributor.authorMartire, K.
dc.contributor.authorBallantyne, K.
dc.contributor.authorHamer, D.
dc.contributor.authorSearston, R.
dc.contributor.authorThompson, M.
dc.contributor.authorCunliffe, E.
dc.contributor.authorKemp, R.
dc.contributor.authorSan Roque, M.
dc.contributor.authorTangen, J.
dc.contributor.authorDioso-Villa, R.
dc.contributor.authorLigertwood, A.
dc.contributor.authorHibbert, D.
dc.contributor.authorWhite, D.
dc.contributor.authorRibeiro, G.
dc.contributor.authorPorter, G.
dc.contributor.authorTowler, A.
dc.contributor.authorRoberts, A.
dc.date.issued2016
dc.description.abstractThis article provides an explanation of the duties and responsibilities owed by forensic practitioners (and other expert witnesses) when preparing for and presenting evidence in criminal proceedings. It is written in the shadow of reports by the National Academy of Sciences (US), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (US), the Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry and a recent publication entitled ‘How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for Lawyers’. The article examines potential responses to questions focused on the need for scientific research, validation, uncertainties, limitations and error, contextual bias and the way expert opinions are expressed in reports and oral testimony. Responses and the discussion is developed around thematics such as disclosure, transparency, epistemic modesty and impartiality derived from modern admissibility and procedure rules, codes of conduct, ethical and professional responsibilities and employment contracts. The article explains why forensic practitioners must respond to the rules and expectations of adversarial legal institutions. Simultaneously, in line with accusatorial principles, it suggests that forensic practitioners employed by the state ought to conduct themselves as model forensic scientists.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityGary Edmond, Bryan Found, Kristy Martire, Kaye Ballantyne, David Hamer, Rachel Searston, Matthew Thompson, Emma Cunliffe, Richard Kemp, Mehera San Roque, Jason Tangen, Rachel Dioso-Villa, Andrew Ligertwood, David Hibbert, David White, Gianni Ribeiro, Glenn Porter, Alice Towler and Andrew Roberts
dc.identifier.citationAustralian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2016; 48(5):496-537
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/00450618.2015.1128969
dc.identifier.issn0045-0618
dc.identifier.issn1834-562X
dc.identifier.orcidSearston, R. [0000-0001-7295-8021]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/112848
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT0992041
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP120100063
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE140100183
dc.rights© 2016 Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2015.1128969
dc.subjectExpert; evidence; report; validation; disclosure; impartial; ethics; duties; professionalism
dc.titleModel forensic science
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Psychology publications