What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.     

A NEW LOOK AT AN OLD ISSUE:

In 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement initiated the State Child Access and Visitation (AV) Grant Program, which involves annual awards of $10 million to states to promote the development of programs to alleviate access problems. Telephone interviews with 970 parents who used mediation, parent education, and supervised visitation programs funded by AV grants in nine states revealed that the programs are reaching diverse groups of parents including many low-income, non-White, and unmarried parents who receive no other type of access assistance. The programs also appear to be achieving the major objectives posited for them by the federal government. One-third to one-half of noncustodial parents in every program type reported that parent–child contact increased following program participation, with supervised visitation users who typically had the lowest levels of parent–child contact reporting a significant increase in the number of days of contact. A review of child support records for 173 program users in three states revealed that child support payments increased among participants following program participation, especially for never-married parents who paid a significantly higher proportion of what they owed. These findings are similar to results reported in a five-state study of mediation programs funded by AV grants that was conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. However, both studies have some serious limitations, including low response rates and the absence of a nontreatment comparison group.     

Human rights safeguards and international cooperation in extradition: Striking the balance

Conclusion It is necessary to strike the correct balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and engendering mutually beneficial cooperation between states in extradition matters. In the absence of effective global international human rights enforcement mechanisms, many of the traditional safeguards still have a real role to play in extradition. This article reviewed five such safeguards and found that all but the nationality exception should be retained to ensure that international cooperation and individual protection are both safeguarded for the common good of society.This is a revised version of a paper presented at an international workshop on Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law, organized jointly by the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law and the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany, May 21–25, 1991.LL.B., University of Exeter 1973; LL.M., Osgoode Hall Law School 1974; D. Jur., Osgoode Hall Law School 1976.