{"title":"A Tale of Two Approaches - The NAS Report and the Law Commission Consultation Paper on Forensic Science","authors":"Rhonda M. Wheate, A. Jamieson","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of scientific\" evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence. Drawing upon the American report and current experience in the UK, this paper proposes a more robust admissibility regime in the UK, including recognition and acceptance of the different roles of the prosecution and defence expert; more thorough and less combative disclosure by the prosecution; wider availability of validation data; and greater legal and research support for the thorough review of the science\" underlying forensic science.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Commentary on Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of scientific" evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence. Drawing upon the American report and current experience in the UK, this paper proposes a more robust admissibility regime in the UK, including recognition and acceptance of the different roles of the prosecution and defence expert; more thorough and less combative disclosure by the prosecution; wider availability of validation data; and greater legal and research support for the thorough review of the science" underlying forensic science.
美国国家科学院(National Academy of Science)和英国法律委员会(Law Commission)最近发表的出版物,在处理法律诉讼中使用“科学”证据的有据可查的历史问题方面,提供了一个有趣的对比。NAS建议对法医科学的科学基础进行彻底的评估,以辨别和提高科学的有效性,然后才能被认为适合法庭目的。英国的做法更试探性地考察了法医科学的法律可采性,把证据固有的不可靠性等更基本的问题放在一边。借鉴美国的报告和英国目前的经验,本文建议在英国建立一个更健全的可受理性制度,包括承认和接受控方和辩方专家的不同角色;控方披露的信息更彻底、更少好斗;更广泛地获得验证数据;为彻底审查法医学背后的“科学”提供更大的法律和研究支持。