Breaking the barriers between intelligence, investigation and evaluation: A continuous approach to define the contribution and scope of forensic science

Abstract

Forensic science has been evolving towards a separation of more and more specialised tasks, with forensic practitioners increasingly identifying themselves with only one sub-discipline or task of forensic science. Such divisions are viewed as a threat to the advancement of science because they tend to polarise researchers and tear apart scientific communities. The objective of this article is to highlight that a piece of information is not either intelligence or evidence, and that a forensic scientist is not either an investigator or an evaluator, but that these notions must all be applied in conjunction to successfully understand a criminal problem or solve a case.To capture the scope, strength and contribution of forensic science, this paper proposes a progressive but non-linear continuous model that could serve as a guide for forensic reasoning and processes. In this approach, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, iterative thinking and the notion of entropy are used to frame the continuum, situate forensic scientists' operating contexts and decision points. Situations and examples drawn from experience and practice are used to illustrate the approach.The authors argue that forensic science, as a discipline, should not be defined according to the context it serves (i.e. an investigation, a court decision or an intelligence process), but as a general, scientific and holistic trace-focused practice that contributes to a broad range of goals in various contexts. Since forensic science does not work in isolation, the approach also provides a useful basis as to how forensic scientists should contribute to collective and collaborative problem-solving to improve justice and security.

Forensic advisors: The missing link

“…Indeed, while it is not expected that any one individual will have unlimited expertise to carry through all investigations, the generalist forensic advisor is meant to have a vast scope of knowledge to apply to investigatory stages and to know when to suggest calling in the necessary expertise. For example, Baechler et al (2020) proposed five key parameters “to assist forensic scientists [in] assess[ing] the strength and limits of their findings as well as guide their decision making […] namely utility, credibility, integrity, timeliness and flexibility of forensic science outputs,” which the forensic scientist should consider when assessing the value of a trace (p. 5). The forensic advisor role is meant to be active and engaging and filled by a generalist forensic scientist, not intended to be new hires lacking knowledge, skills, and experience or restricted to in‐house administrative duties.…”

Towards another paradigm for forensic science?

“…), or the reasoning on the crime scene. Notwithstanding the artificiality of the investigation/ evaluation dichotomy (Baechler et al, 2020), the question seems all the more relevant as Laurin "points to a raft of yet unaddressed issues concerning the meaning of scientific integrity and reliability in the context of investigative decisions that are by and large committed to the discretion of decidedly unscientific actors" (Laurin, 2013).…”

“…Indeed, deduction, which is the only reasoning ensuring logical certainty of a conclusion, is the best, if not only rationale for acquiring a personal degree of belief or going beyond reasonable doubt (Kind, 1994). Isn't it, therefore, opportune to recognize a specific logic of forensic investigation before searching for a relevant epistemological anchoring, going beyond the artificial investigation/evaluation dichotomy, the latter reducing the value of the trace at an incomplete probabilistic quantification (Baechler et al, 2020)?…”

Un modèle continu, non linéaire et collaboratif de l’enquête

“…Ce qui diffère véritablement en fonction de la progression dans le processus d'enquête, ce sont les risques qu'on peut s'autoriser, leur impact potentiel et les conséquences qui y sont associées. Pour guider les enquêteurs dans leur prise de décision, nous définissons cinq paramètres clés inspirés d'études antérieures, à savoir l'utilité, la crédibilité, l'intégrité, le facteur temps et la flexibilité (Baechler et al, 2015(Baechler et al, , 2020.…”

“…3. Le présent article reprend des considérations portant spécifiquement sur la science forensique publiées dans la revue Forensic Science International (Baechler et al, 2020), sur lesquelles il s'appuie. Il les développe et les adapte à l'enquête en général.…”