School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Australia.
Office of the Chief Forensic Scientist, Victoria Police, Australia.
Forensic Sci Int. 2019 Sep;302:109877. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109877. Epub 2019 Jul 26.
We do not know how often false positive reports are made in a range of forensic science disciplines. In the absence of this information it is important to understand the naive beliefs held by potential jurors about forensic science evidence reliability. It is these beliefs that will shape evaluations at trial. This descriptive study adds to our knowledge about naive beliefs by: (1) measuring jury-eligible (lay) perceptions of reliability for the largest range of forensic science disciplines to date, over three waves of data collection between 2011 and 2016 (n=674); (2) calibrating reliability ratings with false positive report estimates; and (3) comparing lay reliability estimates with those of an opportunity sample of forensic practitioners (n=53). Overall the data suggest that both jury-eligible participants and practitioners consider forensic evidence highly reliable. When compared to best or plausible estimates of reliability and error in the forensic sciences these views appear to overestimate reliability and underestimate the frequency of false positive errors. This result highlights the importance of collecting and disseminating empirically derived estimates of false positive error rates to ensure that practitioners and potential jurors have a realistic impression of the value of forensic science evidence.
我们不知道在一系列法医学科中，虚假阳性报告的出现频率有多高。在缺乏此类信息的情况下，了解潜在陪审员对法医学证据可靠性的天真信念就显得尤为重要。这些信念将影响审判中的评估。本描述性研究通过以下方式增加了我们对天真信念的了解：（1）在 2011 年至 2016 年期间的三个数据收集阶段，测量陪审团合格（非专业）人员对迄今为止最大范围的法医学科的可靠性的感知（n=674）；（2）用虚假阳性报告估计值校准可靠性评级；（3）将非专业人员的可靠性估计与机会样本的法医从业人员（n=53）进行比较。总体而言，数据表明，陪审团合格的参与者和从业人员都认为法医学证据具有高度可靠性。与法医学中可靠性和错误的最佳或合理估计相比，这些观点似乎高估了可靠性，低估了虚假阳性错误的频率。这一结果突出表明，收集和传播虚假阳性错误率的经验性估计值非常重要，以确保从业人员和潜在陪审员对法医学证据的价值有一个现实的印象。
