Dismantling the Justice Silos: Avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits of information-sharing between forensic science, medicine and law

Forensic Science International

Volumn 230, Issue 1-3, 2013, Pages 8-15

  Kelty, Sally F ^a   Julian, Roberta ^a   Ross, Alastair ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

^b LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c ANZPAA National Institute of Forensic Science   (Australia)

Author keywords

Case meetings; Context bias; Information sharing; Tunnel vision

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONER; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; INFORMATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; JUDGE; LAW; LAWYER; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MALE; MEDICINE; NONMEDICAL OCCUPATIONS; PATHOLOGIST; PERSONNEL; PHYSICIAN; POLICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEXUAL ASSAULT;

EID: 84879605472     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.10.032     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Julian R., Kelty S.F., Robertson J. Get it right the first time: critical issues at the crime scene. Curr. Issues Crim. Just. Special Issue: Forensic Science and Justice: From Crime Scene to Court and Beyond 2012, 24:25-38.
2. Gross S., Jacoby K., Matheson D., Montgomery N., Patil S. Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 2005, 95:523-555.
3. Roach K. Wrongful convictions: adversarial and inquisitorial themes. N.C.J. Int'l L. Com. Reg. 2010, 35:387-446.
4. Carter M. The Emergence of Collaboration as the Preferred Approach in Criminal Justice 2005, Centre for Effective Public Policy, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 1-10.
5. Ross A. Commentary: forensic science in Australia: where does Australia sit in relation to trends and issues in the international context?. Curr. Issues Crim. Just. Special Issue: Forensic Science and Justice: From Crime Scene to Court and Beyond 2012, 24:121-130.
6. National Academy of Sciences Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
7. Vincent F. Inquiry into the Circumstances that Led to the Conviction of Mr Farah Abdulkadir Jama 2010, Victorian Government Printer, Melbourne, Australia.
8. Bartkowiak-Theron I. Partnership policing for police organisations. Policing in Practice 2011, 180-204. Palgrave Macmillan, South Yarra, Australia. P. Birch, V. Herrington (Eds.).
9. Roux C., Crispino F., Ribaux O. From forensics to forensic science. Curr. Issues Crim. Just., Special Issue: Forensic Science and Justice: From Crime Scene to Court and Beyond 2012, 24:7-25.
10. Mulroney J. Trends in Interagency Work, Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse 2003, The University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia.
11. Murphy C., Fanslow J. Building Collaborations to Eliminate Family Violence: Facilitators, Barriers and Good Practice, New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse 2012, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
12. Jannetta J., Lachman P. Promoting Partnerships Between Police and Community Supervision Agencies: How Coordination Can Reduce Crime and Improve Public Safety 2011, 1-56. US Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (Ed.).
13. Twitchell D., Bodrero R., Good M., Burk K. Overcoming challenges to successful interagency collaboration. Perform. Manage. 2007, 46:8-15.
14. Aronson E. The Social Animal 2010, Worth Publishers, New York.
15. Mitchell D., Eckstein D. Jury dynamics and decision-making: a prescription for groupthink. Int. J. Acad. Res. 2009, 1:163-169.
16. Esser J.K., Lindoerfer J. Groupthink and the space shuttle challenger accident: toward a quantitative case analysis. J. Behav. Dec. Making 1989, 2:167-177.
17. Dempsey J., Frost L. An Introduction to Policing Delmar Cengage Learning 2010, Clifton Park, NY.
18. Findley K.A. Tunnel vision. Conviction of the Innocent: Lessons from Psychological Research 2010, 303-323. APA Press, Washington, DC. B. Cutler (Ed.).
19. Etter B. Changing the way we think about justice! Dealing with miscarriages of justice: shifting boundaries and changing lives. The Australian and New Zealand Critical Criminology Conference, University of Tasmania 2012.
20. Baron R., Kerr N. Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action 2011, Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
21. Page M., Taylor J., Blenkin M. Context effects and observer bias: implications for forensic odontology. J. Forensic Sci. 2011, 57:108-112.
22. Dror I.E., Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci. Justice 2011, 51:204-208.
23. Byrd J. Confirmation bias, ethics, and mistakes in forensics. J. Forensic Ident. 2006, 56:511-525.
24. Cook R., Evett I.W., Jackson G., Jones P.J., Lambert J.A. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci. Justice 1998, 38:151-156.
25. C. Lawless. A curious reconstruction? The shaping of 'marketized' forensic science, Discussion Paper no: 63, Centre for analysis of risk and regulation at the London School of Economics and Political Science, London, 2010.
26. Smith J.A. Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. Rethinking Methods in Psychology 1995, 9-27. Sage Publications, London. J.A. Smith, R. Harré, L. Van Langenhove (Eds.).
27. Miles M.B., Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis 1994, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA.
28. Denzin N.K. The Research Act in Sociology 1970, Aldine, Chicago.