A Perspective on Errors, Bias, and Interpretation in the Forensic Sciences and Direction for Continuing Advancement*

Abstract

The forensic sciences are under review more so than ever before. Such review is necessary and healthy and should be a continuous process. It identifies areas for improvement in quality practices and services. The issues surrounding error, i.e., measurement error, human error, contextual bias, and confirmatory bias, and interpretation are discussed. Infrastructure is already in place to support reliability. However, more definition and clarity of terms and interpretation would facilitate communication and understanding. Material improvement across the disciplines should be sought through national programs in education and training, focused on science, the scientific method, statistics, and ethics. To provide direction for advancing the forensic sciences a list of recommendations ranging from further documentation to new research and validation to education and to accreditation is provided for consideration. The list is a starting point for discussion that could foster further thought and input in developing an overarching strategic plan for enhancing the forensic sciences.

Informing the judgments of fingerprint analysts using quality metric and statistical assessment tools

“…Koehler argues that data and rates such as these are informative as ''base rates'' when the trier of fact is assessing the reliability of the method [26,27]. Others have argued that base rates are misleading, only the probability of a random match is important [28] or that the only relevant error rate is the chance of an error in this case, given quality assurance methods and the potential to reanalyze [29]. Still others have argued that while random match probabilities are useful, they are overshadowed by methodological and human error which may be larger by orders of magnitude [30].…”

An experimental study of blind proficiency tests in forensic science

“…Budowle et al (2009) say that a crime lab "must seek customer feedback, both positive and negative, that will help the laboratory improve the quality of its work and better meet the needs of the customer." They do not say who the customer is and the failure to do so may encourage others to see the "customer" as the police or prosecution.…”

“…They do not say who the customer is and the failure to do so may encourage others to see the "customer" as the police or prosecution. Most labs are organized under law enforcement agencies (NAS 2009, p. 6-1) and most requests for analyses come from law enforcement (Budowle et al 2009). Thus, a crime lab might easily come to think of law enforcements agencies as "customers" to serve.…”

Sexual assault consultations – From high risk to high reliability

“…Research has addressed the question of how to improve the system for patients at the point of initial police contact and at their encounter with the courts, and there is emerging discussion about the interpretation of errors in the forensic sciences. 7e10, 35,36 There is a dearth of literature however, on threats and errors in the intervening phase e the sexual assault consultation. This is therefore an unknown critical variable in the entire process and requires attention.…”