法证科学领域的决策

随着法证DNA证据以及它所适用的概率模型日益凸显,反映了传统法证科学的局限性,并使人们对法证科学领域的决策产生了越来越多的质疑,焦点集中在对结论的解读方式和实际运用。分析表明,科学证据的本质不是绝对性或确定性的,而是概率性的;同时,事实审判者需要基于这些概率性的证据对事实作出明确的决定。因此,对于法证科学领域的决策,应当是专家在一系列归纳得出的特定假设基础上,就研究结果的概率进行恰当的报告,由事实审判者承担对概率作出决断的任务。     

iGovernment: A new perspective on the future of government digitisation

Innovative use of ICT applications is rapidly becoming a cornerstone of modern government policy in every area of service, care and control. Looking beyond the individual applications and layers of digitisation, we find a hodgepodge of information flows running within and between the various public authorities, policy domains, and crossing the public/private boundary. This has consequences for the relation between government and citizens. Step by step, decision by decision, the everyday work of government is changing ‘the rules of the game’ and giving rise to “information Government” (iGovernment), without this being based on any overall strategic agenda or awareness among political decision-makers. This article places this development in a new framework and suggests a perspective on a necessary paradigm shift.     

Of earprints, fingerprints, scent dogs, cot deaths and cognitive contamination--a brief look at the present state of play in the forensic arena

Over the last decades, the importance of technical and scientific evidence for the criminal justice system has been steadily increasing. Unfortunately, the weight of forensic evidence is not always easy for the trier of fact to assess, as appears from a brief discussion of some recent cases in which the weight of expert evidence was either grossly over- or understated. Also, in recent years, questions surrounding the value of forensic evidence have played a major role in the appeal and revision stages of a number of highly publicized criminal cases in several countries, including the UK and the Netherlands. Some of the present confusion is caused by the different ways in which conclusions are formulated by experts working within the traditional approach to forensic identification, as exemplified by (1) dactyloscopy and (2) the other traditional forensic identification disciplines like handwriting analysis, firearms analysis and fibre analysis, as opposed to those working within the modern scientific approach used in forensic DNA analysis. Though most clearly expressed in the way conclusions are formulated within the diverse fields, these differences essentially reflect the scientific paradigms underlying the various identification disciplines. The types of conclusions typically formulated by practitioners of the traditional identification disciplines are seen to be directly related to the two major principles underpinning traditional identification science, i.e. the uniqueness assumption and the individualization principle. The latter of these is shown to be particularly problematic, especially when carried to its extreme, as embodied in the positivity doctrine, which is almost universally embraced by the dactyloscopy profession and allows categorical identification only. Apart from issues arising out of the interpretation of otherwise valid expert evidence there is growing concern over the validity and reliability of the expert evidence submitted to courts. While in various countries including the USA, Canada and the Netherlands criteria have been introduced which may be used as a form of input or output control on expert evidence, in England and Wales expert evidence is much less likely to be subject to forms of admissibility or reliability testing. Finally, a number of measures are proposed which may go some way to address some of the present concerns over the evaluation of technical and scientific evidence.