Rational Bias in Forensics


Reason contributors Glen Whitman and Roger Koppl have an article in the journal Law, Probability & Risk on rational bias in forensic analysis. The outright frauds and charlatans in the forensics field are bad enough. But Koppl and Whitman focus on the structural biases inherent in the way forensic analysis is often performed, biases that likely afflict even well-intentioned analysts. From the abstract:

Specifically, forensic examiners' conclusions are affected not just by objective test results but also by two subjective factors: their prior beliefs about a suspect's likely guilt or innocence and the relative importance they attach to convicting the guilty rather than the innocent. The authorities—police and prosecutors—implicitly convey information to forensic examiners by their very decision to submit samples for testing. This information induces the examiners to update their prior beliefs in a manner that results in a greater tendency to provide testimony that incriminates the defendant. Forensic results are in a sense 'contaminated' by the prosecution and thus do not provide jurors with an independent source of information. Structural reforms to address such problems of rational bias include independence from law enforcement, blind proficiency testing and separation of test from interpretation.

Koppl and I co-wrote a piece for Slate a couple of years ago laying out some of those structural reforms.

The problem goes back to the fact that forensics isn't really science. With the notable exception of DNA testing, most fields in forensics were invented and developed by police agencies, not scientists. So they have evolved over time not to better seek out the truth, but to help law enforcement personnel prove a hunch or theory. Hence the general absence in most forensics of critical components to the scientific process like peer review and blind testing. The forensic evidence is then still presented to juries with all the gloss, polish, and impressive-sounding vernacular of hard science.

The other problem is that while science might be described as a perpetual journey toward truth, once a jury hands down its verdict, the criminal justice system tends to put a premium on finality and closure. So even though science may later show us that the forensic evidence used to convict someone 10 or 20 years ago is flawed, overstated, or simply false, the courts have been reluctant to reopen those cases.

NEXT: Geithner Still Claims Savings Rates Are Up. Savings Rates Still Ain't Up.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shouldn’t there be a video with a babe in it at the end of this post? You know, like Lady Gaga? I think she was totally framed.

    1. Hey Vanneman, we can’t read your poker face. How are you going to love anybody?

    2. Good morrow sir. This plot device seems very familiar to me. Perchance we could discuss your unforgivable breach of etiquette?

  2. Between Radley and Sketical Inquirer I’ve lost respect for the reliability of forensic “science”.*

    * Can we agree that scare quotes are appropriate?

  3. Forensics should employ the same standards as all psychological studies; double-blind testing, etc. There’s a very good reason it’s done for those studies, and considering how “psychological” criminal cases/juries/cop theories/etc are, it only makes sense.

    But it will never happen, because it would handicap the pigs, and they won’t have that.

  4. I’ve never been blinded by forensics

    1. Then check out NCIS. Abby is HOT!

  5. Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication, where by an interest outside of a legal form exists in determining whether an object is what it purports to be, or is alleged as being.

  6. Sorry, Mr. Balko, but Wikipedia says that “blind experiments” are important tools of many fields of research, including forensics. (3rd paragraph, 3rd sentance.) And wiki is never wrong. Can the anon bot give me an LOL?

    The referenced article attached to the wiki page is particularly topical to this post. Eight-years-old and still relevant. It sounds like audits of crime labs are/were more pal-review than peer-review. I particularly like this quote:

    Certainty was a hallmark of science a hundred years ago. It’s a hallmark of pseudoscience now.

    Exchange “certainty” with “scientific consensus” and I think that we have an apt description of another science that balks at peer review and blind testing.

  7. Hi there, do you guys like dating cougars? Are you a cougar who’s looking for a cub? Are you looking for a NSA or serious relationship, you can get what you want here:
    =====- -=====
    It’s where cougars and younger men can meet(Cougar is the slang for woman who is mature, experienced and want to date with a younger man).“11

    1. quality stuff…

  8. There are many fields of forensics which require being real smart to get into (for example being realy good in chemistry). Forensics covers examining dead bodies(sometimes when they are skeletons even). If educated you can tell the age and gender of a skeleton, etc. Blood splatter analysis, DNA, fingerprinting, etc. From what I thought cops or the FBI shouldn’t influence what thy find.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.