A review of likelihood ratios in forensic science based on a critique of Stiffelman "No longer the Gold standard: Probabilistic genotyping is changing the nature of DNA evidence in criminal trials".

DNA / chemistry DNA Fingerprinting Decision Making Forensic Medicine Humans Likelihood Functions
Exhaustiveness Likelihood ratio Presumption of innocence Reasonable doubt

Journal

Forensic science international
ISSN: 1872-6283
Titre abrégé: Forensic Sci Int
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 7902034

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2020
Historique:
received: 31 01 2020
accepted: 11 03 2020
pubmed: 24 3 2020
medline: 4 11 2020
entrez: 24 3 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Stiffelman [1] gives a broad critique of the application of likelihood ratios (LRs) in forensic science, in particular their use in probabilistic genotyping (PG) software. These are discussed in this review. LRs do not infringe on the ultimate issue. The Bayesian paradigm clearly separates the role of the scientist from that of the decision makers and distances the scientist from comment on the ultimate and subsidiary issues. LRs do not affect the reasonable doubt standard. Fact finders must still make decisions based on all the evidence and they must do this considering all evidence, not just that given probabilistically. LRs do not infringe on the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence does not equate with a prior probability of zero but simply that the person of interest (POI) is no more likely than anyone else to be the donor. Propositions need to be exhaustive within the context of the case. That is, propositions deemed relevant by either defense or prosecution which are not fanciful must not be omitted from consideration.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110251 PMID: 32203853
pubmed: 32203853
pii: S0379-0738(20)30113-4
doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110251
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

DNA 9007-49-2

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

110251

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest Buckleton, Bright, and Taylor are the developers of STRmix.

Auteurs

John Buckleton (J)

Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand; Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Auckland, New Zealand.

Bernard Robertson (B)

Barrister, Wellington, Visiting Scholar, Department of Law, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

James Curran (J)

Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.

Charles Berger (C)

Leiden University, Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, PO Box 9520, 2300 RA Leiden, the Netherlands.

Duncan Taylor (D)

Forensic Science SA, PO Box 2790, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia; School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide SA, 5001, Australia.

Jo-Anne Bright (JA)

Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: jo.bright@esr.cri.nz.

Tacha Hicks (T)

Forensic Genetics Unit, University Center of Legal Medicine, Lausanne - Geneva, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Fondation Pour La Formation Continue Universitaire Lausannoise (UNIL-EPFL), 1015 Dorigny, Switzerland.

Simone Gittelson (S)

District of Columbia Department of Forensic Sciences, Washington DC, USA.

Ian Evett (I)

Principal Forensic Services Ltd, Bromley, Kent, UK.

Simone Pugh (S)

California Department of Justice, Redding, CA, USA.

Graham Jackson (G)

Advance Forensic Science, St. Andrews, UK; Abertay University, Bell Street, Dundee, UK.

Hannah Kelly (H)

Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Auckland, New Zealand.

Tim Kalafut (T)

Defense Forensic Science Center, Forest Park, GA USA.

Frederick R Bieber (FR)

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Acides nucléiques, nucléotides et nucléosides › Acides nucléiques › ADN › A review of likelihood ratios in forensic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Administration des services de santé › Organisation et administration › Mesures de sécurité › Identification biométrique › Profilage d'ADN › A review of likelihood ratios in forensic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Phénomènes psychologiques › Processus mentaux › Pensée (activité mentale) › Prise de décision › A review of likelihood ratios in forensic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences sociales › Criminologie › Sciences légales › Médecine légale › A review of likelihood ratios in forensic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › A review of likelihood ratios in forensic...
questionsmedicales.fr › Environnement et santé publique › Santé publique › Méthodes épidémiologiques › Statistiques comme sujet › Probabilité › Fonctions de vraisemblance › A review of likelihood ratios in forensic...