The panel will discuss, from an interdisciplinary standpoint, to what extent can we quantify the uncertainty of forensic reports, and whether it is possible to agree on a European standard for reporting uncertainty in court.
During the last decade European courts have moved in opposite directions in the way they deal with the uncertainty of forensic evidence. To what extent a piece of forensic evidence provides proof of guilt or innocence? How reliable is the science behind forensic analyses? Whereas countries like Sweden have tried to quantify and standardize the uncertainty of each forensic report, so that it can be reliably communicated in court, Spain has chosen to neglect forensic uncertainty and present evidence in court in terms of categorical statements, without giving the defendant the option to confront and question the forensic expert. In this session we want to bring together forensic practitioners, sociologists and philosophers of science to discuss which way is best to face forensic uncertainty.
Col. Jose Juan Lucena, Head, Escuela de Especialización of the Spanish Guardia Civil (military police)
Dr. Corinna Kruse, Technology and Social Change, Linköping University
Dr. Marion Vorms (Psychology, Birbeck College)
Prof. Annouk Barberousse, Dr. Isabelle Drouet (Philosophy, Paris IV)
Dr. David Teira (Philosophy, UNED), chair and discussant
Lucena will present, from a practitioner's perspective, how the
uncertainty of forensic reports is evaluated in Europe. Kruse, from a
STS standpoint, will present her fieldwork with the pioneering Swedish
initiative of standardizing forensic uncertainty with Bayesian
statistics. Vorms would explore, through experimental evidence, what
forensic "reasonable doubt" may mean in various situations of
decision-making under uncertainty. Barberousse and Drouet will discuss,
from a philosophy of science standpoint, the sources of the credibility
of forensic experts.