Biedermann Alex, Kotsoglou Kyriakos N
University of Lausanne, School of Criminal Justice, 1015, Lausanne, Dorigny, Switzerland.
Northumbria University, School of Law, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, United Kingdom.
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2020 Aug 28;2:262-274. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2020.08.004. eCollection 2020.
Forensic science is currently undergoing a transformation and expansion to include modern types of evidence, such as evidence generated by digital investigations. This development is said to raise a series of challenges, both in operational and conceptual dimensions. This paper reviews and discusses a series of convoluted conceptual hurdles that are encountered in connection with the use of digital evidence as part of evidence and proof processes at trial, in contradistinction to investigative uses of such types of evidence. As a recent example raising such hurdles, we analyse and discuss assertions and proposals made in the article "Digital Evidence Certainty Descriptors (DECDs)" by Graeme Horsman (32 Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation (2020) 200896).
法医学目前正在经历变革与扩展，以纳入现代类型的证据，比如数字调查所产生的证据。据说这一发展在操作和概念层面都带来了一系列挑战。本文回顾并讨论了一系列错综复杂的概念障碍，这些障碍在将数字证据用作审判中证据和证明过程的一部分时会遇到，这与这类证据在调查中的使用形成对比。作为引发此类障碍的一个近期例子，我们分析并讨论了格雷姆·霍斯曼在《数字证据确定性描述符（DECDs）》一文中提出的主张和建议（《法医学国际：数字调查》第32卷（2020年）200896号）。
