Earwaker Helen, Nakhaeizadeh Sherry, Smit Nadine M, Morgan Ruth M
Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, ST George's Building, 141 High Street, Portsmouth PO1 2HY, United Kingdom.
UCL Centre for the Forensic Sciences, UCL Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London, 35 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9EZ, United Kingdom.
Sci Justice. 2020 Jan;60(1):9-19. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.08.006. Epub 2019 Aug 30.
There has been an increased engagement by researchers in understanding the decision-making processes that occur within forensic science. There is a rapidly growing evidence base underpinning our understanding of decision-making and human factors and this body of work is the foundation for achieving truly improved decision-making in forensic science. Such an endeavour is necessary to minimise the misinterpretation of scientific evidence and maximize the effectiveness of crime reconstruction approaches and their application within the criminal justice system. This paper proposes and outlines a novel six phased approach for how a broadening and deepening knowledge of decision-making in forensic science can be articulated and incorporated into the spheres of research, practice, education, and policy making within forensic science specifically, and the criminal justice system more generally. Phases 1 and 2 set out the importance of systematic examination of the decisions which play a role throughout forensic reconstruction and legal processes. Phase 3 focuses on how these decisions can, and should, be studied to understand the underlying mechanisms and contribute to reducing the occurrence of misleading decisions. Phase 4 highlights the ways in which the results and implications of this research should be communicated to the forensic community and wider criminal justice system. Lastly, the way in which the forensic science domain can move forwards in managing the challenges of human decision-making and create and embed a culture of acceptance and transparency in research, practice and education (learning and training) are presented in phases 5 and 6. A consideration of all 6 connected phases offers a pathway for a holistic approach to improving the transparency and reproducibility of decision making within forensic science.
研究人员越来越多地参与到对法医学中决策过程的理解中。在支撑我们对决策和人为因素理解的证据基础方面,其增长速度很快,而这一系列工作是在法医学中实现真正改进决策的基础。这样的努力对于尽量减少科学证据的错误解读、最大化犯罪重建方法的有效性及其在刑事司法系统中的应用是必要的。本文提出并概述了一种新颖的六阶段方法,用以阐述如何将对法医学决策的不断拓展和深入的认识,具体纳入到法医学以及更广泛的刑事司法系统中的研究、实践、教育和政策制定领域。第一阶段和第二阶段阐述了系统审视在整个法医重建和法律程序中发挥作用的决策的重要性。第三阶段关注如何能够且应该对这些决策进行研究,以理解其潜在机制,并有助于减少误导性决策的发生。第四阶段强调了应将该研究的结果和影响传达给法医学界及更广泛的刑事司法系统的方式。最后,第五阶段和第六阶段介绍了法医学领域在应对人为决策挑战方面可以向前推进的方式,以及在研究、实践和教育(学习与培训)中营造并融入接受和透明文化的方式。对所有六个相互关联的阶段进行考量,为全面提高法医学决策的透明度和可重复性提供了一条途径。