共查询到3条相似文献,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1.
Geoffrey Stewart Morrison Ewald Enzinger Vincent Hughes Michael Jessen Didier Meuwly Cedric Neumann S. Planting William C. Thompson David van der Vloed Rolf J.F. Ypma Cuiling Zhang A. Anonymous B. Anonymous 《Science & justice》2021,61(3):299-309
Since the 1960s, there have been calls for forensic voice comparison to be empirically validated under casework conditions. Since around 2000, there have been an increasing number of researchers and practitioners who conduct forensic-voice-comparison research and casework within the likelihood-ratio framework. In recent years, this community of researchers and practitioners has made substantial progress toward validation under casework conditions becoming a standard part of practice: Procedures for conducting validation have been developed, along with graphics and metrics for representing the results, and an increasing number of papers are being published that include empirical validation of forensic-voice-comparison systems under conditions reflecting casework conditions. An outstanding question, however, is: In the context of a case, given the results of an empirical validation of a forensic-voice-comparison system, how can one decide whether the system is good enough for its output to be used in court? This paper provides a statement of consensus developed in response to this question. Contributors included individuals who had knowledge and experience of validating forensic-voice-comparison systems in research and/or casework contexts, and individuals who had actually presented validation results to courts. They also included individuals who could bring a legal perspective on these matters, and individuals with knowledge and experience of validation in forensic science more broadly. We provide recommendations on what practitioners should do when conducting evaluations and validations, and what they should present to the court. Although our focus is explicitly on forensic voice comparison, we hope that this contribution will be of interest to an audience concerned with validation in forensic science more broadly. Although not written specifically for a legal audience, we hope that this contribution will still be of interest to lawyers. 相似文献
2.
This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion about the distinction between observations and propositions in forensic inference, with a specific focus on forensic voice comparison casework conducted in the UK. We outline both linguistic and legal issues which make the evaluation of voice evidence and the refinement of propositions problematic in practice, and illustrate these using case examples. We will argue that group-level observations from the offender sample will always be evidential and that the value of this evidence must be determined by the expert. As such, a proposal is made that experts should, at least conceptually, think of voice evidence as having two levels, both with evidential value: group-level and individual-level. The two rely on different underlying assumptions, and the group-level observations can be used to inform the individual-level propositions. However, for the sake of interpretability, it is probably preferable to present only one combined conclusion to the end user. We also wish to reiterate points made in previous work: in providing conclusions, the forensic expert must acknowledge that the value of the evidence is dependent on a number of assumptions (propositions and background information) and these assumptions must be made clear and explicit to the user. 相似文献
3.
Paula Murphy Lucy Potter John Tully Dave Hearn Thomas Fahy Paul McCrone 《The journal of forensic psychiatry & psychology》2017,28(1):57-69
‘Electronic Monitoring’ (EM) uses devices to monitor individuals’ whereabouts. In 2010, South London and Maudsley medium secure unit introduced EM to monitor individuals on leave. Analysis after two years revealed EM was associated with increased unescorted leave and reduced leave violation; however, comparative costs were not established. This study aims to compare costs of EM for patients on leave by comparing average total cost per patient with and without EM. Costs were compared before and after implementation of EM. Total cost of leave for each group was divided by number of patients to generate average total cost per patient. The average total cost per patient without EM was £1702; £1617 with EM. Although cost decreased, this was not statistically significant. The results showed no significant difference between average total costs per patient before and after EM. The finding of EM being cost-neutral is cautiously optimistic. Further trials are recommended. 相似文献