• Users Online: 153
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 139-143

Analysis of errors in forensic science


Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China

Correspondence Address:
Mingxiao Du
Institute of Evidence Law and Forensic Science, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_8_17

Rights and Permissions

Reliability of expert testimony is one of the foundations of judicial justice. Both expert bias and scientific errors affect the reliability of expert opinion, which in turn affects the trustworthiness of the findings of fact in legal proceedings. Expert bias can be eliminated by replacing experts; however, it may be more difficult to eliminate scientific errors. From the perspective of statistics, errors in operation of forensic science include systematic errors, random errors, and gross errors. In general, process repetition and abiding by the standard ISO/IEC:17025: 2005, general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, during operation are common measures used to reduce errors that originate from experts and equipment, respectively. For example, to reduce gross errors, the laboratory can ensure that a test is repeated several times by different experts. In applying for forensic principles and methods, the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 mandate that judges consider factors such as peer review, to ensure the reliability of the expert testimony. As the scientific principles and methods may not undergo professional review by specialists in a certain field, peer review serves as an exclusive standard. This study also examines two types of statistical errors. As false-positive errors involve a higher possibility of an unfair decision-making, they should receive more attention than false-negative errors.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3197    
    Printed75    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded403    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal