A little ignorance is a dangerous thing: engaging with exogenous knowledge not adduced by the parties

Edmond, Gary; Hamer, David; Cunliffe, Emma

doi:10.1080/10383441.2016.1238029

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, there are well-documented concerns about many aspects of standard and accepted practices in the forensic sciences in general (e.g., Campbell 2011;Edmond et al 2016b;Goudge 2008;Lang 2015;NRC 2009;PCAST 2016;Sci. Technol.…”

Section: Is Psychology a Science?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, the failure to acknowledge areas of professional disagreement should not be taken to indicate their absence (Cunliffe & Edmond 2021;Edmond et al 2016bEdmond et al , 2017Paul & Elder 1990)-that is, an absence of evidence should not be taken as evidence of absence (see, e.g., Thompson & Scurich 2018). Instead, such omissions should lead to questions about the technical proficiency of a practitioner who is not aware of relevant contemporary critical discourse (Edmond et al 2016b).…”

Section: Alternative Views or Disagreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Law Meets Psychological Expertise: Eight Best Practices to Improve Forensic Psychological Assessment

Neal¹,

Martire²,

Johan³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We outline and detail eight best practices that should be considered to evaluate the rigor and value of a forensic psychological assessment by drawing on decades of scholarship from and about fundamental basic science and forensic science, clinical and forensic psychology, and legal evidence admissibility. The key considerations include: (1) Foundational validity of the assessment, (2) Validity of the assessment as applied, (3) Management and mitigation of bias, (4) Attention to quality assurance, (5) Appropriately qualified expression of results and opinion, (6) Explicit consideration of limitations and assumptions, (7) Weighing alternative views or disagreements, and (8) Adherence with ethical obligations, codes of conduct, and rules of evidence. When providing a psychological assessment in a legal context that relies on the norms, esteem, and values of science, we argue these best practices should apply.

show abstract

Section: Is Psychology a Science?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Alternative Views or Disagreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Law Meets Psychological Expertise: Eight Best Practices to Improve Forensic Psychological Assessment

Neal¹,

Martire²,

Johan³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consider, too, that in the inquisitorial system forensic expertise is very rarely challenged. Even where challenges to scientific information exist, decisions to admit such information at trial can appear arbitrary, or inconsistent, with decisions based upon non-scientific criteria [59].…”

Section: Challenges Of Context and Communication: Ethical Decision-making As Forensic Expertmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics as Lived Practice. Anticipatory Capacity and Ethical Decision-Making in Forensic Genetics

Wienroth

Granja

Lipphardt

et al. 2021

Genes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greater scrutiny and demands for innovation and increased productivity place pressures on scientists. Forensic genetics is advancing at a rapid pace but can only do so responsibly, usefully, and acceptably within ethical and legal boundaries. We argue that such boundaries require that forensic scientists embrace ‘ethics as lived practice’. As a starting point, we critically discuss ‘thin’ ethics in forensic genetics, which lead to a myopic focus on procedures, and to seeing ‘privacy’ as the sole ethical concern and technology as a mere tool. To overcome ‘thin’ ethics in forensic genetics, we instead propose understanding ethics as an intrinsic part of the lived practice of a scientist. Therefore, we explore, within the context of three case studies of emerging forensic genetics technologies, ethical aspects of decision-making in forensic genetics research and in technology use. We discuss the creation, curation, and use of databases, and the need to engage with societal and policing contexts of forensic practice. We argue that open communication is a vital ethical aspect. Adoption of ‘ethics as lived practice’ supports the development of anticipatory capacity—empowering scientists to understand, and act within ethical and legal boundaries, incorporating the operational and societal impacts of their daily decisions, and making visible ethical decision making in scientific practice.

show abstract

“…The case reveals the difficulty of trying to cross-examine a witness who is unfamiliar with consensus reviews by peak scientific and technical organisations. The examiner's ignorance meant that he would not accept the authority of reports of unquestioned authority, consequently they could not form part of the record (Edmond, Hamer and Cunliffe 2016). effectively regulating forensic science evidence.…”

Section: Jp V Dpp: a Non-compliant Report 'Repaired'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic science and the myth of adversarial testing

Edmond

2019

Current Issues in Criminal Justice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explains why the adversarial trial has not been an effective mechanism for regulating the admission and use of many forms of forensic science evidence. Drawing upon mainstream scientific perspectives, and using an historical study of reported decisions involving latent fingerprint evidence, it documents how lawyers and judges never required forensic scientists to formally evaluate their procedures or express opinions in ways that are scientifically defensible. For more than a century every challenge to latent fingerprint evidence focused on legal and procedural issues, or the significance of fingerprints for the case. Questions about validity and scientific reliability (e.g. Can you do it? How accurate are you?) were not asked until 2015. The study shows that legal approaches and practices were, and are, insensitive to mainstream scientific perspectives on latent fingerprint evidence. It demonstrates that our practices around the admission and presentation of fingerprint evidence (and implicitly many other types of forensic science and medicine) are fundamentally misconceived, that our lawyers and judges genuinely struggle with technical evidence, and that our legal institutions have developed rules and commitments that prevent them from receiving the benefits of mainstream scientific research and advice.

show abstract

A little ignorance is a dangerous thing: engaging with exogenous knowledge not adduced by the parties

Cited by 8 publications

References 27 publications

The Law Meets Psychological Expertise: Eight Best Practices to Improve Forensic Psychological Assessment

The Law Meets Psychological Expertise: Eight Best Practices to Improve Forensic Psychological Assessment

Ethics as Lived Practice. Anticipatory Capacity and Ethical Decision-Making in Forensic Genetics

Forensic science and the myth of adversarial testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About