Tai J J, Chen M H
Institute of Statistical Science, Academia Sinica, National Cheng-Chi University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Proc Natl Sci Counc Repub China B. 1994 Jan;18(1):36-43.
Forensic judgment of paternity depends on genetic and nongenetic evidence. Sometimes genetic marker tests can provide clear evidence to exclude a falsely accused man, but they do not always succeed. On the other hand, if the accusation is true, the alleged father will not ever be excluded by genetic marker tests. When a nonexclusion case occurs after one or more marker tests, a report of paternity probability is required in the court. The current methods for calculating the paternity probability are the "paternity index method" and the "nonexclusion method." A number of recent articles have openly debated the fallacies, validity and utility of both methods. This paper briefly reviews the two methods and proposes a non-excluded set method along with examples for illustrating the various patterns of paternity probabilities of the three methods.
亲子鉴定的法医判定取决于遗传和非遗传证据。有时，基因标记测试可以提供明确的证据来排除被错误指控的男子，但并非总能成功。另一方面，如果指控属实，所谓的父亲永远不会被基因标记测试排除。当在一次或多次标记测试后出现不能排除的情况时，法庭需要一份亲子鉴定概率报告。目前计算亲子鉴定概率的方法是“父权指数法”和“非排除法”。最近有一些文章公开讨论了这两种方法的谬误、有效性和实用性。本文简要回顾了这两种方法，并提出了一种非排除集方法，并举例说明这三种方法亲子鉴定概率的各种模式。
