Helping with inquiries or helping with profits? The trials and tribulations of a technology of forensic reasoning

Lawless, Christopher; Williams, Robin

doi:10.1177/0306312710378787

Cited by 32 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…in analysis software, outsourced data analysis, and generally in the delivery of routine and advanced forensic services (cf. Lawless and Williams 2010;Roberts 1996;Wienroth 2020). These are ongoing discussions, especially as commercial services providers grow in significance in some markets, e.g.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Value beyond scientific validity: let’s RULE (Reliability, Utility, LEgitimacy)

Wienroth

2020

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

My perspective piece contributes to social studies of biometric technologies, and to studies on values and valuation within debates of responsible innovation. I reflect on innovation as social practice where values are temporary settlements of considerations around validity, operability, and social compatibility of socio-technical innovations. As such, I propose a practice-based approach to testing values in new technologies and their respective emerging practice and governance arrangements around Reliability, Utility and LEgitimacy (RULE). These three values combine scientific with operational and social aspects of innovation as centre-points around which deliberative engagement can be facilitated between different societal perspectives, offering the opportunity to develop greater awareness of diverse and at times competing understandings of value. On the case study of forensic geneticsthe use of genetic material and data for policing purposes in security and justice contexts -I make the case for multi-perspectival, crossdisciplinary, community-grounded deliberation based on RULE.

show abstract

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Value beyond scientific validity: let’s RULE (Reliability, Utility, LEgitimacy)

Wienroth

2020

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By bringing the new digital forensics field (and all its subfields) into an already fragmented environment, the complexity of the situation increases. Different systemic constraints governing police, science, and justice organizations potentially amplified by the marketization of forensic science are exacerbating factors (Kolowski, ; Lawless, ; Lawless & Williams, ).…”

Section: Near‐to‐be‐resolved Forensics Crisis?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the (traditional) Galilean science paradigm well suited to forensic science?

Crispino

Roux

Delémont

et al. 2019

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more than 10 years, forensic science has been at best, criticized for its lack of scientific foundations and at worst, presented as an oxymoron. An exclusive focus on standard operating procedures and quality management could cause forensic science to fall short of addressing the epistemological issue initiated by judges. This is particularly so in rapidly changing times, including digital transformation of society and decentralization of forensic services. As a consequence, the present understanding of forensic science by both scientists and its stakeholders is questioned. It is argued that that forensic science fundamental principles and, more broadly, forensic science philosophy are pivotal to the reliable application of science to address security and justice questions.

show abstract

“…65 Both Lawless and Williams adopt Garland's perspective in their explorations of the forensic science market. 66 It is postulated that their approach may be of limited utility, and that it is no longer sufficient to view economic rationalization as a mere 'ragbag of techniques'. Rather, it is possible to discern distinct patterns of development exhibited by processes of economic rationalisation, which may appear merely tactical in emergent phases, but which are comparatively instrumental in the more developed stages.…”

Section: Theoretical Analysis: Governmentality and The Restructuring mentioning

confidence: 99%

Streamlined Forensic Reporting

Richmond

2018

The Journal of Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Criminal Justice System Efficiency Program aims to deal ‘promptly and efficiently’ with ‘low-level, straightforward cases’ in order to dispense ‘swift and sure justice’. To meet these objectives, the Ministry of Justice places a duty on defence solicitors to reduce the ‘costs and delay associated with forensic evidence’. It justifies its requirements with reference to the Criminal Procedure Rules, highlighting the need for solicitors to actively manage criminal cases, to take part in pre-trial hearings and to engage with forensic evidence through a new form of discourse: Streamlined Forensic Reporting (SFR). The SFR scheme operates ‘by taking a more proportionate approach to forensic evidence through the early preparation of a short report that details the key forensic evidence the prosecution intends to rely upon’. The aim is to avoid the costs associated with thorough forensic analysis by encouraging an early guilty plea. In circumstances where such a plea cannot be elicited, the scheme aims to secure agreement on forensic issues at the earliest stage. It places an obligation on the defence to identify these problematic areas. Drawing on comparative ethnographic research within the forensic science and criminal justice sectors, this article questions the safety or utility of these attenuated and instrumental forms of ‘efficient’ forensic discourse. It demonstrates that streamlined reports are often compiled by non-expert administrators, lack contextual evaluation or technical explanation and are frequently inaccurate or misleading. It asks whether the veiled and incremental approach to the issue of disclosure forms an adequate basis for proper scrutiny or legal challenge, and questions whether this scheme, which exhibits a marked ambivalence towards forensic expertise, may ultimately subvert the duty placed on the courts to place forensic evidence in its proper context.

show abstract

Helping with inquiries or helping with profits? The trials and tribulations of a technology of forensic reasoning

Cited by 32 publications

References 44 publications

Value beyond scientific validity: let’s RULE (Reliability, Utility, LEgitimacy)

Value beyond scientific validity: let’s RULE (Reliability, Utility, LEgitimacy)

Is the (traditional) Galilean science paradigm well suited to forensic science?

Streamlined Forensic Reporting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About