Enhancing the Scientific Validity of Methodological Support in Forensic Science: An Important International Trend
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2017-12-2-11-17
Abstract
One of the key requirements of modern-day forensic practice is to enforce the principle of scientific validity of applied methods. Current practices show that the issues of scientific validity of forensic methodologies and methodological validation of their application in forensic settings lend themselves to various semantic, operational, and legal interpretations. Drawing from the special report «Forensic Science in the Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods», prepared by the U.S. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69th Annual Scientific Meeting, the authors examine the scope for resolving the most important methodological limitations in the forensic sciences. This includes achieving clarity of scientific standards relating to the validity and reliability of forensic methods, as well as ensuring objective evaluation of specific analytical techniques in terms of their scientific validity and reliability. Conclusions made by foreign scientists are analyzed in terms of their relevance for the future development of the Russian forensic science legislation and harmonization of forensic science collaboration within the Eurasian Economic Union.
About the Authors
Svetlana A. Smirnova
Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University).
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Smirnova Svetlana Arkad’evna - Distinguished Lawyerof the Russian Federation, Doctor of Law, Full Professor, Director of the RFCFS of the Russian Ministry of Justice, head of the Department of Forensic Science of RUDN University.
Moscow.
Aleksandr I. Usov
Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University); Bauman Moscow State Technical University (BMSTU).
Russian Federation
Usov Aleksandr Ivanovich - Doctor of Law, Professor, Deputy Director of the RFCFS of the Russian Ministry of Justice, professor of the Department of Forensic Science of RUDN University, professor of the Law, Intellectual Property and Forensics Department, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, member of AAFS.
Russian Federation
Usov Aleksandr Ivanovich - Doctor of Law, Professor, Deputy Director of the RFCFS of the Russian Ministry of Justice, professor of the Department of Forensic Science of RUDN University, professor of the Law, Intellectual Property and Forensics Department, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, member of AAFS.
References
1. Usov А.I., Voytov S.A. Scope for validation of forensic investigation methodologies: a case study from audio forensics. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2013. No 3(31). P. 18-23. (In Russ.).
2. Usov A.I. Innovations and progress of the forensic activities. Law and State = Pravo i gosudarstvo. 2016. No 1 (70). P. 48-52. (In Russ.).
3. Jones J.P. The Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science Highlights Recent Standards and Baseline Documents for Many Disciplines. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 13-18, 2017). 2017. Vol. 23. P. 526. URL: https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017Proceedings.pdf.
4. Usov A. I., KhazievSh.N. About the report of National Academy of Sciences of the USA «About Strengthening of a Judicial-Expert Science in the USA». Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2010. No 2 (18). P. 196-202. (In Russ.).
5. Kozinski A. Rejecting Voodoo Science in the Courtroom. The Wall Street Journal. 19.09.16. URL https://www.wsj.com/articles/ rejecting-voodoo-science-in-the-courtroom- 1474328199?mod=trending_now_4.
6. Darvas A.A. Frye, Daubert, or None of the Above: What Rules Govern Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Court? Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69 th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 13-18, 2017). 2017. Vol. 23. R 831. URL: https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017Proceedings.pdf.
7. Carroll М.Е., Mohammed L., Domitrovich S., Nuzum W.M., Goudge S., Barristers P.R., et al. Special Sessions: The Evolution of Daubert and Its Effects on the Forensic Sciences. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 13-18, 2017). 2017. Vol. 23. P. 4-6. URL: https://www.aafs.org/wp-content /uploads/2017Proceedings.pdf.
8. Belkin R.S. Course of Criminalistics. Moscow: Yuniti, 2001.837 p. (In Russ.).
9. Rossinskaya (ed.). Forensic expertize typical mistakes. Moscow: Prospekt, 2012. 544 p. (In Russ.).
10. Sulner A., Scheck B.C., Findley K.A., Kassin S., Langenburg G., et al. Cognitive Bias Issues in the Forensic Analysis of Pattern and Impression Evidence and in Medicolegal Evaluations. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 67th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 16-21, 2015). 2015. Vol 21. P. 41-42. URL: https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015Proceedings.pdf.
11. Smirnova S.A., Omel’janjuk G.G., Usov A. I. Legislative consolidation of the innovations in the forensic activities in the Russian Federation. Russian journal of legal studies. 2016. No 1 (6). P. 220-227.
Review
For citations:
Smirnova S.A., Usov A.I. Enhancing the Scientific Validity of Methodological Support in Forensic Science: An Important International Trend. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2017;12(2):11-17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2017-12-2-11-17
Views:
1528
Email this article 