Dismantling the Justice Silos: Avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits of information-sharing between forensic science, medicine and law

Kelty, Sally F.; Julian, Roberta; Ross, Alastair

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.10.032

Cited by 35 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, it enables contextual information to be shared, exhibits to be prioritised and for actors to consider a diverse range of potential forensic recovery and analysis options. These findings expand and support those of Kelty et al (2013) and Howes (2017), providing important insights from a different jurisdiction and from observations of live homicide investigations. Our findings also strengthen Donnelly's (2019) insights from his own professional practice by drawing on detailed interviews with forensic scientists from three major private FSPs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…However, whether or not, actors are invited into spaces of dialogue and the frequency of such communication is contingent on the seriousness of the offence and the complexity of the case or forensic science concerned (Howes, 2017;Kelty et al, 2013).…”

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At its worst, "flawed communication" can lead to wrongful convictions (Smit et al, 2018: 129). Nevertheless, Kelty et al (2013) warn that if justice agencies work too closely together, "decision making errors [can occur], such as groupthink, social conformity, tunnel vision and context bias". In summary, there are two broadly distinct views of whether and how information sharing poses risk to the integrity of the work undertaken by criminal justice actors -'cognitive bias risk' versus the 'justice silo risk'.…”

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

We need to talk about dialogue: Accomplishing collaborative sensemaking in homicide investigations

Jones¹,

Brookman

Williams

et al. 2020

The Police Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we explore the importance of dialogue for collaborative sensemaking during homicide investigation, focusing upon interactions between detectives, forensic scientists and other experts involved in managing and undertaking forensic work. Drawing on data from a 4-year ethnographic study of British homicide investigations, we provide insights from criminal justice actors about both the value of, and barriers to, inter-professional and cross-disciplinary dialogue. We explore how and why organisational arrangements may limit opportunities for forensic scientists and other experts to engage collaboratively with detectives and prosecutors. We conclude by considering ways to enhance collaborative sensemaking during the investigation of homicide.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

We need to talk about dialogue: Accomplishing collaborative sensemaking in homicide investigations

Jones¹,

Brookman

Williams

et al. 2020

The Police Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At least the dominant paradigm, as it stands, shows some fragility and breaches may even be opened for a possible change, namely: accountability of the effectiveness and efficiency of forensic science highlights systematically how poorly information conveyed by traces is used (Bradbury and Feist 2005); decentralisation of techniques to be applied outside the laboratory becomes a reality; digital remnants available early in investigations have yet put more pressure on the overall forensic science system by bringing more variety and a significant larger volume of data to be processed. These new 'big data' spaces are now calling for more integrated treatments in other kinds of investigative settings, particularly in relation with terrorism concerns; fragmentation of investigations through the current forensic setting is recognised to cause ruptures hindering the fluidity of reasoning processes (Kelty et al 2012). The latter results in a net loss of information or, worse, false leads, occasionally conducting to miscarriage of justice.…”

Section: Why Does Forensic Investigation Develop So Timidly In Organimentioning

confidence: 99%

Expressing the value of forensic science in policing

Ribaux

Roux

Crispino

2016

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Only a small part of forensic science activities scattered across criminal justice systems is the object of scientific scrutiny, and is taken into account when evaluating the added-value brought by this discipline. These include abductive and inductive species of inferences used in crime investigation, crime analysis and criminal intelligence. The 'scientificity' of these processes may be questioned, but it is not contested that they largely determine the global outcome of justice systems. As a result they cannot be ignored. To unlock the debate, it is proposed to turn the forensic science focus from means (instruments, techniques, methods) to ends (what is the problem, what are the objectives?). This perspective naturally leads to proactive models of policing. It also provides possible frameworks to express various uses of the information conveyed by traces for solving problems. Reframed forensic science contributions are more validly expressed and the current debate can ultimately be transcended.

show abstract

“…Police have sometimes questioned the ability of a forensic physician assessing sexual assault victims to remain objective and not to overly identify with the victim 6 .…”

Section: Introduction: the Issue Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimising bias in the forensic evaluation of suspicious paediatric injury

Skellern

2015

Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the rules of evidence in all legal jurisdictions, medical experts are required to maintain objectivity when providing opinions. When interpreting medical evidence, doctors must recognise, acknowledge and manage uncertainties to ensure their evidence is reliable to legal decision-makers. Even in the forensic sciences such as DNA analysis, implicit bias has been shown to influence how results are interpreted from cognitive and contextual biases unconsciously operating. In cases involving allegations of child abuse there has been significant exposure in the media, popular magazines, legal journals and in the published medical literature debating the reliability of medical evidence given in these proceedings. In these cases judges have historically been critical of experts they perceived had sacrificed objectivity for advocacy by having an investment in a 'side'. This paper firstly discusses the issue of bias then describes types of cognitive biases identified from psychological research applied to forensic evidence including adversarial bias, context bias, confirmation bias and explains how terminology can influence the communication of opinion. It follows with previously published guidelines of how to reduce the risk of bias compromising objectivity in forensic practices then concludes with my own recommendations of practices that can be used by child protection paediatricians and within an organisation when conducting forensic evaluations of suspicious childhood injury to improve objectivity in formulation of opinion evidence.

show abstract

Dismantling the Justice Silos: Avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits of information-sharing between forensic science, medicine and law

Cited by 35 publications

References 4 publications

We need to talk about dialogue: Accomplishing collaborative sensemaking in homicide investigations

We need to talk about dialogue: Accomplishing collaborative sensemaking in homicide investigations

Expressing the value of forensic science in policing

Minimising bias in the forensic evaluation of suspicious paediatric injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About