Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies (TILES), University of Tasmania, Private Bag 22, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia; Chemical & Physical Sciences Group, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, 31 Forensic Drive, Macleod, VIC 3085, Australia.
Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies (TILES), University of Tasmania, Private Bag 22, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia; Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 89, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia.
Forensic Sci Int. 2020 Feb;307:110121. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110121. Epub 2019 Dec 18.
The focus of this research was to examine the contribution chemical trace evidence makes to criminal justice outcomes. The aim of this work was to place the discipline of chemical trace evidence under the spotlight as there is a dearth of robust research on the impact of this discipline. In this study, data relating to the forensic examinations in a sample of 238 cases which included chemical trace evidence, was collated with data from police investigations and court processes. The findings show that chemical trace evidence is frequently used in combination with other forensic disciplines to support the progress of high-level criminal cases through the justice system. Due to characteristics of how the criminal cases in the dataset were investigated and prosecuted, in combination with the methodology applied in this study, the impact of forensic evidence on the decision to charge suspects could not be analysed quantitatively. However, the impact of forensic evidence on court outcomes in the sample of cases was analysed using methodology that considered the results of the examinations, and the ability of the evidence to provide support for the inclusion or exclusion of persons of interest. The possibility of chemical trace evidence having impact when applied in combination with other forensic disciplines was also examined. It was found that biological examination results was a significant standalone predictor of court outcomes. In contrast, chemical trace examinations did not predict court outcomes when considered as a standalone predictor but examination results of chemical trace evidence in combination with ballistics/tool marks was significantly associated with court outcomes. The findings of this research indicate that, to assess the full impact of any discipline of forensic evidence on the criminal justice system, the analysis must take into account the potential for important synergies that may exist with other forensic and non-forensic evidence.
本研究的重点是检验化学痕迹证据对刑事司法结果的贡献。这项工作的目的是将化学痕迹证据这一学科置于聚光灯下,因为关于该学科的影响缺乏强有力的研究。在这项研究中,与包括化学痕迹证据在内的 238 个案例的法医检查相关的数据与来自警察调查和法庭程序的数据进行了整理。研究结果表明,化学痕迹证据经常与其他法医学科结合使用,以支持通过司法系统推进高级刑事案件。由于数据集内的刑事案件的调查和起诉的特点,以及本研究中应用的方法,无法对法医证据对指控嫌疑人的决定的影响进行定量分析。然而,使用考虑了检查结果以及证据在提供对相关人员的纳入或排除的支持能力的方法,对样本案例中的法庭结果进行了法医证据的影响分析。还研究了化学痕迹证据与其他法医学科结合使用时可能产生影响的可能性。结果发现,生物检查结果是法庭结果的一个重要独立预测因素。相比之下,化学痕迹检查作为独立预测因素时并不能预测法庭结果,但化学痕迹证据与弹道/工具痕迹的检查结果相结合时,与法庭结果显著相关。这项研究的结果表明,为了评估任何法医学科的证据对刑事司法系统的全面影响,分析必须考虑到与其他法医学科和非法医学科证据可能存在的重要协同作用。