Metric forensic anthropology decisions: Reliability and biasability of sectioning-point-based sex estimates

Subjective decisions make human cognitive processes more susceptible to bias and error. Specifically, research indicates that additional context biases forensic anthropologists’ morphological analyses. To address whether metric analyses are also subject to bias, we conducted a pilot study in which 52 experienced osteologists measured a difficult-to-classify human femur, with or without additional contextual information. Using a metric sectioning-point sex-estimation method, participants provided a sex estimate for individual skeletal element(s) and, when given multiple elements, the combined skeletal assemblage. Control group participants (n = 24) measured only the femur. In addition to the femur, bias group participants (n = 28) either measured a female humerus and viewed a female-biasing photograph (n = 14) or measured a male humerus and viewed a male-biasing photograph (n = 14). We explored whether the experts in the different groups would differ in: (1) femoral measurements; (2) femoral sex-estimation conclusions; and (3) final sex-estimation conclusions for the skeletal assemblage. Although the femoral measurements and femoral sex estimates were comparable across groups, the overall sex estimates in the female-biased group were impacted by contextual information—differing from both the control and male-biased groups (p < 0.001). Our results demonstrate that cognitive bias can occur even in metric sex-estimation conclusions. Specifically, this occurred when the metric data and single-element sex estimates were synthesized into an overall estimate. Thus, our results suggest that metric methods are most vulnerable to bias when data are synthesized into an overall conclusion, highlighting the need for bias countermeasures and comprehensive statistical frameworks for synthesizing metric data to mitigate the effects of cognitive bias.     

精神病人合同能力鉴定的相关问题

为了探讨精神病人合同能力鉴定的相关理论 ,解决合同能力鉴定中鉴定标准混乱的问题 ,对合同能力鉴定的法律基础、标准、民事行为能力与民事权利能力的区别 ,民事行为能力的广义、狭义区分进行了论述。提出合同能力鉴定的核心问题是意思表示的真实性 ,主张将合同能力分为有、无两级 ,强调合同能力的分级与民事行为能力的等级存在区别。并提出合同能力鉴定的程式为 :首先判定其行为能力 ,有行为能力相应具有合同能力 ,无行为能力即无合同能力 ,限制民事行为者 ,应根据年龄、智力、精神健康状况、生活关联度 ,再分为有合同能力、无合同能力。     

A SHORT COMMENTARY ON TIMOTHY M. TIPPINS AND JEFFREY P. WITTMANN'S "EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS

In this commentary, the call for clinical humility and judicial vigilance in custody recommendations is confirmed as valid and the Australian experience, where the child custody report writer has for some years been permitted to express an opinion on the ultimate issue, is considered. The inherent risks are briefly discussed, and the question of who of the judge and the social scientist might be better placed to decide the exquisitely difficult children's issues after family breakdown is touched upon. It suggests that a combination of the expert's opinion and judicial fact finding probably produces a result that is as good as it gets. But a greater danger is highlighted. It is the impact of the adversary system, and whether it is suitable in any event to these sensitive court decisions.     

司法鉴定人制度研究

鉴定人在英美法系国家作为当事人的“专家证人”与证人共存于证人规则框架之下,在大陆法 系国家作为法官的“科学辅助人”被纳入准司法官员的范畴内,两大法系形成了各有利弊的鉴定人制度。我 国的鉴定人制度虽与它们不同,但在基本精神、法律性质等方面仍有相似之处,应在对两大法系鉴定人制度 和我国现行的鉴定人制度综合分析的基础上,根据人大常委会《决定》确立的思路,建构科学、合理、有效的 鉴定人制度。     

以证明对象为视角谈刑事证明标准

证明标准是我国刑事证据理论研究中的热点问题。证明对象与证明标准不仅一同决定了刑事诉讼活动发展的方向和目标,而且二者的关系也十分密切。证明对象不同,证明标准也会有所差别。以证明对象为视角,针对不同层次的证明对象,设立不同层次的证明标准,意义重大。     

浅议民事诉讼中的专家证人制度

专家证人制度是英美法系的法律制度,其功能是弥补法官在专业知识上的缺陷,帮助法庭查明案件中遇到的专业性问题.我国民事诉讼率先引进了类似于专家证人的制度,以补充我国司法鉴定制度的不足.本文试从英美法系专家证人形态入手,分析引进专家证人制度对我国司法鉴定制度带来的影响及其完善的路径.     

司法鉴定若干问题探析

司法鉴定的内涵应界定为:具有法定鉴定资格的人,受司法机关指派或委托, 对诉讼活动中与案件有关的专门技术问题进行审查鉴别、作出科学判断的活动。目前,我国司 法鉴定人制度还需要完善,司法鉴定体制需要从调整公安、检察机关内设鉴定机构,撤消法院 内部鉴定机构,确定鉴定标准和规则,建立鉴定质量保证体系等方面进行改革。     

立法过程中专家咨询制度的多维面相

我国正处于全面建设小康社会的关键时期,利益多元化与利益失衡现象并存。如何有效地回应社会需求,避免立法疏误,提高立法品质,增强立法的正当性是立法主体必须面对的问题。专家咨询制度具有多维面相,从政治民主的角度看是立法民主的表现,从科学决策的角度看是立法科学的保证,从法治的角度看是立法合法的要求,从公共治理的角度看是立法正当的期待。全面认识和把握专家咨询制度的多维面相,有助于充分发挥其在立法过程中的功能和作用。     

论我国鉴定人屏蔽作证制度的法理基础

新《刑事诉讼法》规定,鉴定意见应经质证才能作为定案依据.这一刚性规定促使鉴定人必须履行出庭作证义务,从而提高了鉴定意见证据效力对质证程序的依赖程度,鉴定人出庭作证制度的完善就格外重要.鉴定人屏蔽作证方式为这一问题的探寻提供了微观视角,我国已经存在证人屏蔽作证的司法实践,但是对于鉴定人屏蔽作证的正当性还存在争议,而这些争议实质上是鉴定人屏蔽作证与传统诉讼法原理的冲突与解决,具体反映在鉴定人屏蔽作证应当遵循的原则、程序设置、配套措施等方面.     

专家参与刑事司法的多元功能及其体系化

从1979年刑事诉讼法颁布至今,专家参与我国刑事司法的制度功能变得开放而多元。专家制度功能的多元化,根源于刑事司法的三重逻辑:弥合法律人与专家之间知识鸿沟的“认知逻辑”;落实公检法机关“分工负责,互相配合,互相制约”原则的“权力逻辑”;保障当事人合法权益与实现控辩平等的“权利逻辑”。从结构主义与整体主义的视角看,当前,刑事专家制度存在明显的体系化缺陷,主要表现为专家制度过度权力化、专家制度功能尚未结构化、专家制度不够规范化。改进刑事专家制度,应当采取体系化路径:首先,将多元专家参与模式调整为鉴定人与专家辅助人二元专家模式;其次,彰显专家制度的“权利逻辑”,矫正过度权力化倾向;最后,构建系统化的专家制度,为专家服务刑事司法创造制度条件。