Liberties and constraints of the normative approach to evaluation and decision in forensic science: A discussion towards overcoming some

Law, Probability and Risk

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 181-191

  Biedermann, Alex ^a   Taroni, Franco ^a   Aitken, Colin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Decision theory; Forensic science; Normative approach; Probability theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901833359     PISSN: 14708396     EISSN: 1470840X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgu009     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. AITKEN, C. G. G., ROBERTS, P.&JACKSON, G. (2010). Fundamentals of Probability and Statistical Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Practitioner Guide No. 1), Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses, Royal Statistical Society's Working Group on Statistics and the Law.
2. AITKEN, C. G. G.&TARONI, F.(2004). Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, 2nd edn. John Wiley&Sons, Chichester.
3. AITKEN, C. G.G. et al. (2011). Expressing evaluative opinions: A position statement. Science&Justice, 51, 1-2.
4. ALLEN, R. J. (2013). Taming complexity: rationality, the law of evidence and the nature of the legal system. Law, Probability and Risk, 12, 99-113.
5. BARON, J.(2008). Thinking and Deciding, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, New York.
6. BERGER, C. E. H., BUCKLETON, J., CHAMPOD, C., EVETT, I. W.&JACKSON, G. (2011). Evidence evaluation: A response to the court of appeal judgement in R v T. Science&Justice, 51, 43-49.
7. BIEDERMANN, A., BOZZA, S.&TARONI, F. (2008). Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: Underlying logic and argumentative implications. Forensic Science International, 177, 120-132.
8. BODZIAK, W. J. (2012). A final comment. Law, Probability and Risk, 11, 363-364.
9. CHAMPOD, C. (2014). Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science. Science&Justice, 54, 107-109.
10. CHERNOFF, H.&MOSES, L. E.(1959). Elementary Decision Theory. John Wiley&Sons, New York.
11. CURRAN, J. M. (2013). Editorial: Is forensic science the last bastion of resistance against statistics? Science & Justice, 53, 251-252.
12. DE FINETTI, B.(1974). Theory of Probability, A Critical Introductory Treatment, Volume 1, John Wiley&Sons, London.
13. EDWARDS, W. (1988). Insensitivity, commitment, belief, and other Bayesian virtues, or, who put the snake on the warlord's bed? In: Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence, The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science) (P. Tillers&E. D. Green eds.) 271-276. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
14. EVETT, I.W.&WEIR, B. S.(1998). Interpreting DNA Evidence. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland.
15. FEYERABEND, P.(2011). The Tyranny of Science. Polity Press, Cambridge.
16. GASTWIRTH, J. L.(1988). Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy, Volume 2, Academic Press, Boston.
17. JOYCE, H. (2005). Career story: Consultant forensic statistician. Communication with Ian Evett, significance 2, 34-37.
18. KAPLAN, J. (1968). Decision theory and the factfinding process. Stanford Law Review, 20, 1065-1092.
19. KAYE, D. H. (1999). Clarifying the burden of persuasion: What Bayesian decision rules do and do not do. The International Journal of Evidence&Proof, 3, 1-29.
20. LEMPERT, R. O. (1977). Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review, 75, 1021-1057.
21. LINDLEY, D.(1985). Making Decisions, 2nd edn. John Wiley&Sons, Chichester.
22. LINDLEY, D. V. (2006). Understanding Uncertainty. John Wiley&Sons, Hoboken.
23. MCGRAYNE, S. B. (2011). The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy. Yale University Press.
24. REDMAYNE, M., ROBERTS, P., AITKEN, C. G. G.&JACKSON, G. (2011). Forensic science evidence in question. Criminal Law Review, 347-356.
25. REGINA v T, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division (2010).
26. ROBERTSON, B.& VIGNAUX, G. A.(1995). Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. John Wiley&Sons, Chichester.
27. ROBERTSON, B., VIGNAUX, G. A.&BERGER, C. E.H. (2011). Extending the confusion about Bayes. TheModern Law Review, 74, 444-455.
28. SAVAGE, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York.
29. SHAFER, G.& PEARL, J. eds. (1990). Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo.
30. SIMMROSS, U. (2014). Appraisal of scientific evidence in criminal justice systems: On winds of change and coexisting formats. Law, Probability and Risk, in press.
31. SPOTTSWOOD, M. (2014). Bridging the gap between Bayesian and story-comparison models of juridical inference. Law Probability and Risk, 13, 47-64.
32. TARONI, F., BOZZA, S.&AITKEN, C. G. G. (2005). Decision analysis in forensic science. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50, 894-905.
33. WALD, A.(1950). Statistical Decision Functions. John Wiley&Sons, New York.