Are inconclusive decisions in forensic science as deficient as they are said to be?

Détails

Ressource 1Télécharger: BiedermannBozzaTaroniVuille_2019.pdf (1156.35 [Ko])
Etat: Serval
Version: Final published version
Licence: CC BY 4.0
ID Serval
serval:BIB_E28CCD0451CE
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Titre
Are inconclusive decisions in forensic science as deficient as they are said to be?
Périodique
Frontiers in Psychology
Auteur(s)
Biedermann Alex, Bozza Silvia, Taroni Franco, Vuille Joëlle
ISSN
1664-1078 (Electronic)
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
19/03/2019
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
10
Numéro
520
Pages
1-9
Langue
anglais
Notes
Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No. BSSGI0_155809 ), The University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI (Michigan Grotius Research Fellowship)
Résumé
Many quarters of forensic science use reporting formats such as “identification,” “inconclusive,” and “exclusion.” These types of conclusions express opinions as to whether or not a particular person or object is the source of the material or traces of unknown source that is of interest in a given case. Rendering an “inconclusive” conclusion is sometimes criticized as being inadequate because—supposedly—it does not provide recipients of expert information with helpful directions. In this paper, we critically examine this claim using decision theory. We present and defend the viewpoint according to which deciding to render an “inconclusive” conclusion is, on a formal account, not as inadequate as may commonly be thought. Using elements of decision theory from existing accounts on the topic, we show that inconclusive conclusions can actually be viable alternatives with respect to other types of conclusions, such as “identification.”
Mots-clé
forensic science, evidence evaluation, probabilistic inference, decision making, reporting formats
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
19/03/2019 11:50
Dernière modification de la notice
09/05/2019 2:31
Données d'usage