ISO Standards Addressing Issues of Bias and Impartiality in Forensic Work

Dror, Itiel E.; Pierce, Michal L.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3512032

Cited by 4 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As stress becomes high, performance and quality of decisions start to drop (17). In forensic science, quality of judgments includes accuracy, but also other issues, such as confidence levels, documentation of the decision‐making process, reporting of the conclusions, ability to justify the decisions, and their presentation in court (18; see also [19] for Hierarchy of Expert Performance).…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Feedback is a critical factor in its own right that can impact well‐being and performance (24), as it can have implications for the motivation, expectations, and the decision‐making of forensic examiners (e.g., questions 8 and 9 in [25]). Therefore, understanding the ways feedback given to forensic examiners and how it may affect the decision‐making of forensic examiners is important for understanding the context in which decisions are made (18,26). This has the potential to impact the entire crime reconstruction process (27).…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During casework, forensic examiners communicate and receive feedback from a variety of sources, which can be categorized into five domains: forensic services, investigative, legal, public (26), and regulatory (18) domains (see Fig. 1).…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Organizational and Human Factors Affecting Forensic Decision‐Making: Workplace Stress and Feedback

Almazrouei

Dror

Morgan

2020

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although forensic examiners operate in a stressful environment, there is a lack of understanding about workplace stress and feedback. These organizational and human factors can potentially impact forensic science judgments. In this study, 150 practicing forensic examiners from one laboratory were surveyed about their experiences of workplace stress, and the explicit and implicit feedback they receive. Forensic examiners reported that their high stress levels originated more from workplace-related factors (management and/or supervision, backlogs, and the pressure to do many cases) than from personal related factors (family, medical, and/or financial). The findings showed that a few (8%) of the forensic examiners sometimes felt strong implicit feedback about what conclusions were expected from them and that some (14%) also strongly felt that they were more appreciated when they helped to solve a case (e.g., by reaching a "match" as opposed to an "inconclusive" conclusion). Differences were found when comparing workplace stress and feedback levels across three core forensic science fields (forensic biology, chemistry, and latent prints) and across career stages (early, mid, and late). Gaining insights into the stress factors within a workplace and explicit and implicit feedback has implications for developing policies to improve the well-being, motivation, and performance of forensic examiners.

show abstract

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Organizational and Human Factors Affecting Forensic Decision‐Making: Workplace Stress and Feedback

Almazrouei

Dror

Morgan

2020

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is hard for a consumer to know how to assess, rely on, and use the product when an error rate is not known. In the forensic domain, there are many users and stakeholders (e.g., investigative, judicial, regulatory and public—See figure 1 in [7]). For example, without error rates how can the court know how to consider and weigh the evidence presented (8,9)?…”

Section: Why Error Rates Are So Neededmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If we want the error rates to reflect real casework, then their establishment must mirror real casework conditions. This means, first and foremost, that examiners should not know they are being tested, and must think they are conducting real casework (7,42,43). It has been well established that when people know they are being tested, and even more so, measuring errors in their decisions, their performance is going to be different (e.g., [44,45]; see also the Hawthorne effect).…”

Section: Why Are Error Rates So Elusivementioning

confidence: 99%

The Error in “Error Rate”: Why Error Rates Are So Needed, Yet So Elusive

Dror

2020

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishing error rates is crucial for knowing how well one is performing, determining whether improvement is needed, measuring whether interventions are effective, as well as for providing transparency. However, the flurry of activities in establishing error rates for the forensic sciences has largely overlooked some fundamental issues that make error rates a problematic construct and limit the ability to obtain a meaningful error rate. These include knowing the ground truth, establishing appropriate databases, determining what counts as an error, characterizing what is an acceptable error rate, ecological validity, and transparency within the adversarial legal system. Without addressing these practical and theoretical challenges, the very notion of a meaningful error rate is limited.

show abstract

Wrongful convictions and forensic science

Bonventre

2020

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than 2,600 exonerations have been documented in the United States since 1989. Forensic science-in the form of postconviction DNA testing-has played a critical role in the revelation that wrongful convictions are a problematic feature of criminal justice. Yet, forensic science is also among the many factors-including eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, informants, and more-that are correlates of wrongful convictions. Forensic science contributes to erroneous convictions when analysts provide invalid testimony at trial or when such evidence fails to correct false crime theories. Moreover, while intentional forensic misconduct certainly exists, the effects of confirmation biases may present a greater threat to forensic analyses. The preceding mechanisms and reform efforts are discussed.

show abstract

ISO Standards Addressing Issues of Bias and Impartiality in Forensic Work

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Organizational and Human Factors Affecting Forensic Decision‐Making: Workplace Stress and Feedback

Organizational and Human Factors Affecting Forensic Decision‐Making: Workplace Stress and Feedback

The Error in “Error Rate”: Why Error Rates Are So Needed, Yet So Elusive

Wrongful convictions and forensic science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About