The Use of Probabilistic and Statistical Methods to Test the Significance of Scientific Evidence: Comparative Analysis of Current Forensic Practices in Russia and Abroad
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-4-6-15
Abstract
The article addresses the problem of developing scientifically sound approaches and quantitative criteria for assessing reliability of expert evidence that take into account the contextual information contained in case materials and are based on likelihood ratios. The evolution of the system of views on this problem in forensic science theory in Russia and abroad is considered, and the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes Guideline for Evaluative Reporting in Forensic Science is analyzed. The Guideline was published in 2015. This manual is a practical tool for experts assessing the evidentiary value of their conclusions resulting from specific types of forensic examination. It also sets out recommendations on how to present the results of such an assessment in the format of the so-called “evaluative report”. The starting point of the comparative analysis is the problem of how the legal system and its subjects interpret the results reported by an expert witness, as well as any other forensic evidence expressed in probabilistic terms. At present the probabilistic way of describing uncertainties, originating in the natural sciences, is firmly established in criminalistics and forensic science. A clear position that has formed in the context of the Russian legislation, theory and practice of forensic expertise is to interpret probability as synonymous with assumption. In the foreign forensic science community the fate of probabilities was different. The authors emphasize the practical value of further improving the tools for assessing the reliability of examination results in the forensic sciences and related areas.
About the Authors
A. I. Usov
The 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
Russian Federation
Doctor of Law, Full Professor, First Deputy Director
Professor of the Department of Forensic Examination Activities
Professor of the Law, Intellectual Property and Forensic Science Department
member of AAFS
O. B. Gradusova
The 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
Head of the Laboratory of Forensic Biology and Soil Analysis
Master’s Student at the Department of Forensic Examination Activities
S. A. Kuz’min
The 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
Candidate of Law, Leading Researcher
Associate Professor of the Department of Forensic Examination Activities
References
1. Smirnova S.A. Current challenges and expert technologies of law enforcement. Multimodal edition «Forensic science: reboot». Part 1. Moscow: EKOM, 2012. 656 p. (In Russ.)
2. Strogovich M.S. Substantive truth and scientific evidence in Soviet criminal proceedings. Moscow: AN SSSR, 1955. 384 p. (In Russ.)
3. Eisman A.A. Relationship between truth and validity in the criminal process. Soviet State and Law = Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. 1966. No. 6. P. 92–97. (In Russ.)
4. Orlov Yu.K. Forensic science as a means of proof in criminal proceedings. Scientific publication. Moscow: IPK RFTsSE, 2005. 264 p. (In Russ.)
5. Eliseev V.N., Krivoshei E.N., Lyakhova N.V., Myasnyankina V.N., Polyakov V.Z., Tains T.A., Khvylya-Olinter A.I., Edzhubov L.G. Statistical fingerprinting. Methodological problems / L.G. Edzhubov (ed.). Moscow: Gorodets, Formula prava, 1999. 184 p. (In Russ.)
6. Vinberg A.I. The basic principles of Soviet criminalistics. Moscow: Yur. lit., 1949. 131 p. (In Russ.)
7. Bartick E.G. Government’s Role in Funding Scientific Research. Forensic Science Research and Evaluation Workshop: A Discussion on the Fundamentals of Research Design and an Evaluation of Available Literature (May 26–27, 2015 Washington, D.C.). National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C., 2016. P. 96–99.
8. Mnookin J.L., Cole S.A., Dror I.E., Fisher B.A., Houck M.M., Inman K., Kaye D.H., Koehler J.J., Langenburg G., Risinger D.M., Rudin N., Siegel, Stoney D.A. The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences. 58 UCLA Law Review. 2011. P. 726–779.
9. Stoney D. What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics? Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 1991. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 197–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-7368(91)73138-1
10. Saks M.J., Koehler J.J. The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review. 2008. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 199–219.
11. Kaye D.H. Probability, Individualization, and Uniqueness in Forensic Science Evidence: Listening to the Academies. Penn State Law eLibrary. 2010. https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer= https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1015&context=fac_works
12. Methodology seminar for lawyers and mathematicians. Soviet State and Law = Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. 1964. No. 12. P. 115–217. (In Russ.)
13. Aitken C., Roberts P., Jackson G. Fundamentals of Probability and Statistical Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses. Royal Statistical Society’s Working Group on Statistics and the Law. London, 2010. 121 p.
14. Aitken C., Taroni F. Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2004. 540 p.
15. Cook R., Evett I., Jackson G., Jones P., Lambert J. A Hierarchy of Propositions: Deciding Which Level to Address in Casework. Science & Justice. 1998. Vol. 38. No. 3. P. 231–239.
16. Evett I.W., Jackson G., Lambert J.A., McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science & Justice. 2000. Vol. 40. No. 4. P. 233–239.
17. Expressing evaluative opinions: A position statement. Science & Justice. 2011. Vol. 51. No. 1. P. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.01.002
18. Biedermann A., Champod C., Willis S. Development of European Standards for Evaluative Reporting in Forensic Science. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof. 2017. Vol. 21. No. 1–2. P. 14–29. http://doi.org/10.1177/1365712716674796
19. Bebeshko G., Voytov S., Omelyanyuk G., Usov A. Applying Bayesian methods for metrological evaluation and interpretation of forensic evidence. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2014. No. 1 (33). P. 148–158. (In Russ.)
20. Gradusova O.B., Kuz’min S.A. Probability Interpretation of Forensic Evidence. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2017. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 27–33. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2017-12-4-6-11
21. Gradusova O.B., Kuz’min S.A., Selin A.I., Govorina N.V., Voitov S.A., et al. ENFSI guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science: annotated translation / A.I. Usov (ed.). Moscow: RFCFS, 2018. 128 p. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Usov A.I., Gradusova O.B., Kuz’min S.A. The Use of Probabilistic and Statistical Methods to Test the Significance of Scientific Evidence: Comparative Analysis of Current Forensic Practices in Russia and Abroad. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2018;13(4):6-15. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2018-13-4-6-15
Views:
1628
Email this article 