Cognitive Bias in Forensic Science
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Within the realm of forensic science, there has been a notable surge in recognition of the role of human cognition. This has led to a more comprehensive understanding of the limitations and weaknesses of human decision-making when faced with ambiguity, and how they can impact the admissibility and trustworthiness of forensic research. These limitations are often caused by motivational or cognitive biases, which have led to misidentifications and, consequently, wrongful convictions of innocent individuals. It is critical to address these concerns given the significant impact that forensic science has on society. This article delves into the issue of prejudice and its potential impact on the opinions of forensic professionals in criminal cases, as well as the dangers of bias in several forensic science fields, including fingerprint examination, trace evidence, bullet comparison, and DNA analysis. The essay posits that several factors, such as the quality and clarity of forensic evidence, contextual case information, and subjective interpretation of forensic analysis, can contribute to prejudice. To mitigate bias, various strategies such as blind testing, blind verification, independent review, linear sequential unmasking (LSU), and the filler control approach are recommended. The article evaluates the benefits and drawbacks of these tactics and suggests cross-examination questions that may reveal bias in forensic examination.
Article Details
L Meintjes-van der Walt 'The proof of the pudding: The presentation and proof of expert evidence in South Africa' (2003) 47 Journal of African Law 88.
William C. Thompson, What Role Should Investigative Facts Play in the Evaluation of Scientific Evidence, 43 AUSTL. J. FORENSIC SCI. 123 (2011).
Jennifer L. Mnookin et al., The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences, 58 U?LA L. REV. 725 (2011).
Angela Byrne & Michael W. Eysenck, Individual Differences in Positive and Negative Interpretive Biases, 14 PERSONALITY & INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 849 (1993).
Itiel E. Dror et al., When Emotions Get the Better of Us: The Effect of Contextual Top-Down Processing on Matching Fingerprints, 19 APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOL. 799 (2005).
Vittorio Girotto & Guy Politzer, Conversational and World Knowledge Constraints on Deductive Reasoning, 68 ADVANCES PSYCHOL. 87 (1990).
D Bernstein 'Expert witnesses, adversarial bias, and the (partial) failure of the Daubert revolution' (2008) 93 Iowa Law Review 451 at 455-456.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 'A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case' (2006) (OIG 2006 Report), available at bttps://oig.justice.gov/special/sO601/final.pdf accessed on 06 October 2019.
See Itiel E. Dror, Cognitive Neuroscience in Forensic Science: Understanding and Utilizing the Human Element, 370 PHIL. TRANSACTIONS ROYAL Soc'y B. 1, 1 (2015).
I.W. Evett & R.L. Williams, A Review of the Sixteen Points Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales, 65 J. FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION 557, 566, 578 (2015).
Saul M. Kassin et al., The Forensic Confirmation Bias: Problems, Perspectives, and Proposed Solutions, 2 J. APPLIED RES. MEMORY & COGNITION 42, 43 (2013).
Lisa J. Hall & Emma Player, Will the Introduction of an Emotional Context Affect Fingerprint Analysis and Decision-Making?, 181 FORENSIC SCI. INT'L 36, 36 (2008).
See Ziva Kunda, The Case for Motivated Reasoning, 108 PSYCHOL. BULL. 480, 480 (1990)
Bernard Robertson Et Al., Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science In The Courtroom 64, 102 (2nd Ed. 2016).
Hall & Player, Context Effects and Observer BiasImplications for Forensic Odontology, 57 J. FORENSIC SCI. 108, 108 (2012).
Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis, 35 RISK ANALYSIS 1230, 1230 (2015).
Risinger et al op cit (n15) 6-8. See also Forensic Science Regulator Guidance 2015 op cit (n13) 11.
Giannelli 'Independent crime laboratories' op cit (n17) 251
K Russmo and J Pollack 'Confirmation bias and other systemic causes of wrongful convictions: A sentinel events perspective' (2019) 11 North-Eastern University Law Review 802.
Reese op cit (n21) 1260; Dror et al 'When expert decision making goes wrong' op cit (n21) 162-163 and Stoel et al op cit (n5) 68.
Bee v The Road Accident Fund (093/2017) [20181 ZASCA 52 (29 March 2018)
Godi v S (A683/09) [2011] ZAWCHC 561.
William C. Thompson & Simon. A Cole, Psychological Aspects of Forensic Identification Evidence in EXPERT PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTIMONY FOR THE COURTS 31 (Mark Costanzo, Daniel A. Krauss & Kathy Pezdek eds., 2007).
Itiel E. Dror & Peter A.F. Fraser-Mackenzie, Cognitive Biases in Human Perception, Judgment and Decision-making: Bridging Theory and the Real World in CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE FAILURES 53 (Kim Rossmo ed., 2008).
William C. Thompson, Beyond Bad Apples: Analyzing the Role of Forensic Science in Wrongful Convictions, 37 Sw. U. L. REV. 971 (2009).
Lid6n op cit (nl2) 85-86; Reese op cit (n21) 1257.
Stevenage, S. V., & Bennett, A. (2017). A biased opinion: Demonstration of cognitive bias ona fingerprint matching task through knowledge of DNA test results. Forensic science international, 276, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.04.009.
Kellman, P. J., Mnookin, J. L., Erlikhman, G., Garrigan, P., Ghose, T., Mettler, E., … Dror, I. E. Forensic Comparison and Matching of Fingerprints: Using Quantitative Image Measures for Estimating Error Rates through Understanding and Predicting Difficulty. PLoS ONE, 9(5), (2014).
Jeff Kukucka, Saul M. Kassin, Patricia A. Zapf, Itiel E. Dror, Cognitive Bias and Blindness: A Global Survey of Forensic Science Examiners, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Volume 6, Issue 4, 452-459 (2017).
Thompson, William C. and Scurich, Nicholas, When Does Absence of Evidence Constitute Evidence of Absence? (September 4, 2018).
Forensic Science International, Forthcoming, UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2018-56, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3244168.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.