Forensic Science Identification Evidence

Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law 16:1-35 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

For decades, courtrooms around the world have admitted evidence from forensic science analysts, such as fingerprint, tool-mark and bite-mark examiners, in order to solve crimes. Scientific progress, however, has led to significant criticism of the ability of such disciplines to engage in individualization i.e., “match” suspects exclusively to evidence. Despite this, American courts largely reject legal challenges based on arguments that identification evidence provided by these forensic science disciplines is unreliable. In so holding, these courts affirm precedent that it is the adversarial system’s function to weed out frailties in forensic evidence, and find that criticism of the forensic sciences lacks sui generis qualities. This article provides an independent critique of relevant American case law, from which three themes emerge. These themes are (1) the law’s misuse of science; (2) law’s scepticism towards change; and (3) law’s narrow construction of rationality, which generates reductionist concepts, and divorces science from its social context. As such, this article shows how the American judiciary’s approach to this global issue provides a contemporary illustration of key institutional tensions between science and law, and offers some recommendations for reforms that aim to facilitate the legal process to utilize the most reliable forensic science evidence possible.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 94,439

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Just truth? Carefully applying history, philosophy and sociology of science to the forensic use of CCTV images.Gary Edmond - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (1):80-91.
Science, truth, and forensic cultures: The exceptional legal status of DNA evidence.Michael Lynch - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (1):60-70.
Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process.Sheila Jasanoff - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (2):328-341.
An English Daubert? Law, Forensic Science and Epistemic Deference.Tony Ward - 2015 - Journal of Philosophy, Science and Law 15:26-36.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-14

Downloads
30 (#529,825)

6 months
6 (#735,879)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references