Robertson B, Vignaux G A
Department of Business Law, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Genetica. 1995;96(1-2):145-52. doi: 10.1007/BF01441160.
Much of the controversy over DNA evidence is due to the way in which forensic scientific evidence has classically been presented. The orthodox approach is to consider whether two samples match according to a predetermined criterion. If they do, the fact of match is reported along with an estimate of the frequency of the characteristics. This method fails to address the questions raised in court cases, diverts argument into irrelevancies and stultifies research. Presentation of evidence in the form of likelihood ratios, on the other hand, forces the witness to answer the questions the court is interested in and makes apparent lines of research required to increase our understanding.
关于DNA证据的许多争议源于法医科学证据的传统呈现方式。正统方法是根据预先确定的标准来考虑两个样本是否匹配。如果匹配，就会报告匹配事实以及特征频率的估计值。这种方法未能解决法庭案件中提出的问题，将争论引向无关紧要的方面，并阻碍了研究。另一方面，以似然比的形式呈现证据，迫使证人回答法庭感兴趣的问题，并明确了为增进我们的理解所需的研究方向。
