Calculating likelihood ratios for a mixed DNA profile when a contribution from a genetic relative of a suspect is proposed

This technical note describes a practical method for evaluating evidence in the case of a two person conditioned DNA mixture where the defence proposition is that the unknown contributor is genetically related to the suspect. A conditioned mixture is one where the presence of DNA from one of two individuals is accepted by both prosecution and defence. A typical example would be a vaginal swab in an alleged rape case, where the presence of the complainant's DNA would be expected and samples have been taken from the complainant and a suspect. Much has been written about the interpretation of such mixtures and the calculation of the conditional genotype probabilities that must be carried out. In general, such treatments assume that the unknown contributor, under the defence proposition, is unrelated to the known individuals. In this paper, we consider the case where the defence proposition is that the unknown contributor is genetically related to the suspect. We describe a method, incorporating a flow chart and reference tables that facilitate manual calculations of the likelihood ratio for several postulated genetic relationships.     

DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures

The DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG) was convened at the 21st congress of the International Society for Forensic Genetics held between 13 and 17 September in the Azores, Portugal. The purpose of the group was to agree on guidelines to encourage best practice that can be universally applied to assist with mixture interpretation. In addition the commission was tasked to provide guidance on low copy number (LCN) reporting. Our discussions have highlighted a significant need for continuing education and research into this area. We have attempted to present a consensus from experts but to be practical we do not claim to have conveyed a clear vision in every respect in this difficult subject. For this reason, we propose to allow a period of time for feedback and reflection by the scientific community. Then the DNA commission will meet again to consider further recommendations.     

“善良”为何如此重要?——中西人治思想的一个比较观察

本文以中西人治思想中的“善良”为线索 ,探讨了人治思想的终极理由及其差异 ,解读了人治理念的实现途径及其困境 ,从而论证了从人治到法治是人类社会发展的必然选择。     

事实与价值:罪过评价的二元视角——论传统罪过理论的缺陷与期待可能性理论

传统罪过理论的缺陷在于只注重心理事实的判断而忽视规范价值的判断(对过错是否具备刑法非难价值的判断),本文试图将大陆法系刑法理论中的期待可能性理论引入我国的罪过理论中,从而在罪过的概念中增加规范价值评价的因素,以使我国的罪过理论更加完善。     

也论推定规则适用中的证明责任和证明标准——兼与何家弘教授商榷

中国现行法不仅存在转移“完整证明责任”的推定规则，也存在类似于美国法上仅转移“举证责任”的推定规则。在中国，对推定事实进行有效反驳的证明标准不应该是统一的“优势证据”标准，而应该根据诉讼类型、推定类型不同而有所区分。     

The data protection framework decision of 27 November 2008 regarding police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – A modest achievement however not the improvement some have hoped for

After more than three years in the making, that have witnessed much controversy, several working texts and at least two altogether different versions, the Data Protection Framework Decision “on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters” (hereafter, the DPFD) was finally adopted on 27 November 2008. The DPFD was supposed to be celebrated as the Data Protection Directive equivalent in European law enforcement (Third Pillar) processing. However, since its formal adoption, and even before that, data protection proponents (the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Article 29 Working Party, national Data Protection Commissioners, NGOs) lamented its adoption as the result of changes that ultimately compromised data protection. Is the DPFD a disappointment to the great expectations that accompanied its first draft, back in 2006? An attempt to address this question shall be undertaken in this paper.