Bias in Forensic Examination
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2021-4-6-16
Abstract
The article discusses various aspects of the influence of bias on the formation of conclusions of a forensic expert. The author highlights that the negative effect of bias is especially significant in identification examinations, where the conclusions are based on subjective interpretations of the results of marks comparison (toolmark, fingerprint, firearms examinations, and others). The author also notes that there is no clear border between objectivity and subjectivity in forensic examinations. All types of forensic examinations exist in an objective-subjective continuum, which causes different conclusions’ reliability. Since subjectivity is the basis for bias formation, minimizing its impact can be achieved in several ways – increasing the “transparency” of documenting the research process, technical analysis and verification of an expert’s opinion, applying quantitative criteria for evaluating the matching features in the compared marks. The most logical way to reduce the influence of bias is to eliminate the causes that give rise to this phenomenon. These are the excessive contextual information provided to the expert, the expert’s deviation from the requirements of methodological recommendations in examining the objects, and various external and internal influences.
About the Author
A. V. Kokin
The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kokin Andrey Vasil’evich – Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Chief State Forensic Expert at the Laboratory of Forensic Ballistics; Professor at
Department of Forensic Activities at the Educational and Scientific Forensic Complex
Moscow 109028
Moscow 117437
References
1. Aver’yanova T.V. Forensic Examination. Course of General Theory. Moscow: Norma, 2008. 480 p. (In Russ.).
2. Rossinskaya E.R. (Ed.). Forensic Examination. Typical Errors. Moscow: Prospekt, 2019. 544 p. (In Russ.).
3. Khrustalev V.N. How to Ensure the Authenticity of Evidence Obtained by an Expert? Forensic Examination. 2016. No. 3 (47). P. 156–171. (In Russ.).
4. Shvedova N.N. About the Quality of Forensic Experts’ Training: A Private Opinion. Bulletin of Criminalistics. 2019. No. 2 (70). P. 30–37. (In Russ.).
5. Bushuev V.V. Some Aspects of the Psychology of Expert Activity. Expert-Criminalist. 2008. No. 2. P. 9–11. (In Russ.).
6. Asnis A.Ya., Khaziev Sh.N. International Forensic Cooperation and Advocacy. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2019. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 43–54. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-4-43-54
7. Kukucka J., Kassin S.M., Zapf P.A., Dror I.E. Cognitive Bias and Blindness: A Global Survey of Forensic Science Examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2017. Vol. 6. No. 4. P. 452–459. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001
8. Khaziev Sh.N. Lawyer – Victim of a Fingerprint Error. Lawyer. 2005. No. 4. P. 30–35. (In Russ.).
9. Spinney L. Science in Court: The Fine Print. Nature. 2010. Vol. 464. P. 344–346. https://doi.org/10.1038/464344a
10. A Review of the FBI’s Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case. Office of the Inspector General US Department of Justice, Washington, DC., 2006. https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/special/s0601/PDF_list.htm
11. Dror I.E., Charlton D. Why Experts Make Errors. Journal of Forensic Identification. 2006. No. 56 (4). P. 600–616.
12. Asnis A.Ya. Subjectivity and Objectivity in Forensic Science and Modern Law Practice. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2016. No. 1 (41). P. 60–62. (In Russ.).
13. Usov A.I. Forensic Science: Establishing Facts on the Boundary between Objective and Subjective. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2015. No. 3 (39). P. 164–167. (In Russ.).
14. Giverts Р., Kokin A.V. The Problem of Subclass Features in Forensic Firearms Identification. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2020. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 109–117. https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2020-1-109-117
15. Ma’lis N.P., Yarmak K.V., Bushuev V.V. Fingerprinting and Fingerprinting Expertise. Textbook for University Students Studying in the Specialty “Forensic Science”. Moscow: Yuniti-Dana, 2017. 264 p. (In Russ.).
16. Biasotti A. A Statistical Study of the Individual Characteristics of Fired Bullets. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 1959. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 34–50.
17. Biasotti A., Murdock J. Firearm and Toolmark Identification. In: Faigman D., Kaye D., Saks M., Sanderson J. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. West Publishing Company, 1997. Vol. 2. P. 131–151.
18. Moran B. Firearms Examiner Expert Witness Testimony: The Forensic Firearms Identification Process Including Criteria for Identification and Distance Determination. AFTE Journal. 2000. Vol. 32. No. 3. P. 231–251.
19. Eeden C.A.J., de Poot C.J., van Koppen P.J. The Forensic Confirmation Bias: A Comparison between Experts and Novices. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2018. Vol. 64. No. 1. P. 120–126. http://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13817
20. Dror I., Wertheim K., Fraser-Mackenzie P., Walajtys J. The Impact of Human-Technology Cooperation and Distributed Cognition in Forensic Science: Biasing Effects of AFIS Contextual Information on Human Experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2012. Vol. 57. No. 2. P. 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02013.x
21. Krane D., Ford S., Gilder J., Inman K., Jamieson A., Koppl R., Komfield I., Risinger D.M., Rudin N., Taylor M., Thompson W. Letter to the Editor: Sequential Unmasking: A Means of Minimizing Observer Effects in Forensic DNA Interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2008. Vol. 53. No. 4. P. 1006–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00787.x
22. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community. Washington: National Research Council, 2009. 352 p.
23. Nichols R. Firearm and Toolmark Identification: The Scientific Reliability of the Forensic Science Discipline. London: Academic Press, 2018. 170 p.
Review
For citations:
Kokin A.V. Bias in Forensic Examination. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2021;16(4):6-16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2021-4-6-16
Views:
1077
Email this article 