Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:54:46.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemics for Forensics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Roger G. Koppl ,
Robert Kurzban  and
Lawrence Kobilinsky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forensic science error rates are needlessly high. Applying the perspective of veritistic social epistemology to forensic science could produce new institutional designs that would lower forensic error rates. We make such an application through experiments in the laboratory with human subjects. Redundancy is the key to error prevention, discovery, and elimination. In the “monopoly epistemics” characterizing forensics today, one privileged actor is asked to identify the truth. In “democratic epistemics,” several independent parties are asked. In an experiment contrasting them, democratic epistemics reduced the rate at which biased observers obscured the truth by two-thirds. These results highlight, first, the potential of “epistemic systems design,” which employs the techniques of economic systems design to address issues of veracity rather than efficiency, and second, the value of “experimental epistemology,” which employs experimental techniques in the study of science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 141 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akerlof, G. A. 1970. “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality, Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3): 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, R. J. 1976. “Agreeing to Disagree.” Annals of Statistics 4: 1236–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, D. and Banks, J. S.. 1996. “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” American Political Science Review 90(1): 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartley, W. W. III. 1987. “Alienation Alienated: The Economics of Knowledge versus the Psychology and Sociology of Knowledge.” In Radnitzsky, G. and Bartley, W. W. III (eds.), Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. and Ockenfels, A.. 2000. “ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition.” American Economic Review 90: 166–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G. and Buchanan, J.. 1984. “Voter Choice: Evaluating Political Alternatives.” The American Behavioral Scientist 28(2): 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G. and Lomasky, L.. 1993. Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, W. A., Durlauf, S. N., and West, K. D.. 2007. “Model Uncertainty and Policy Evaluation: Some Theory and Empirics.” Journal of Econometrics 136: 629–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromwich, M. R. 2005. Second Report of the Independent Investigator for the Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory and Property Room. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://www.hpdlabinvestigation.org/reports/050531report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, A. 2002. “Social Moral Epistemology.” Social Philosophy and Policy 19: 126–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchanan, A. 2007. “Institutions, Beliefs and Ethics: Eugenics as a Case Study.” Journal of Political Philosophy 15: 22–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G. and Rabin, M.. 2002. “Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, S. 2005. “More Than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification.” The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 95(3): 985–1078.Google Scholar
Dewald, W. G., Thursby, J. G. and Anderson, R. G.. 1986. “Replication in Empirical Economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project.” American Economic Review 76: 587–603.Google Scholar
Feddersen, T. J. and Pesendorfer, W.. 1999. “Elections, Information Aggregation, and Strategic Voting.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 10572–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K.. 1999. “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. 2008. Forensics Under Fire: Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice? New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D. and Kreps, D. M.. 1988. “A Theory of Learning, Experimentation, and Equilibrium in Games.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Giannelli, P. C. 1997. “The Abuse of Evidence in Criminal Cases: The Need for Independent Crime Laboratories.” Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law 4: 439–78.Google Scholar
Giannelli, P. C. 2007. “Confirmation Bias.” Criminal Justice, 22(3): 60–1.Google Scholar
Glenn, M. 2006. “Under the Microscope: HPD's Evidence Closely Watched This Time Around.” Houston Chronicle, July 11. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/crimelab/4038116.htmlGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 1978. “Epistemics: The Regulative Theory of Cognition.” The Journal of Philosophy 75: 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 1992. Liaisons: Philosophy Meets the Cognitive and Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 2001. “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 2007. “Social Epistemology,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2007 edition. E. N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/epistemology-social/Google Scholar
Grieve, D. 1996. “Possession of Truth.” Journal of Forensic Identification. 46(5): 521–8.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., and Smith, V.. 1996. “Social Distance and Other-regarding Behavior in Dictator Games.” American Economic Review 86: 653–60.Google Scholar
Jonakait, R. N. 1991. “Forensic Science: The Need for Regulation.” Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 4: 109–91.Google Scholar
Kaufman, F. 1998. Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin. Queen's Printer for Ontario.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. F. and Wearne, P.. 1998. Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab. NewYork: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Khanna, R. 2006. “Crime Lab's DNA Section, Shut in '02, Will Reopen,” Houston Chronicle, June 21. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/crimelab/3988198.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koppl, R. 2005a. “Epistemic Systems.” Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology 2(2): 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppl, R. 2005b. “How to Improve Forensic Science.” European Journal of Law and Economics 20(3): 255–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppl, R. Forthcoming. “Romancing Forensics: Legal Failure in Forensic Science Administration.” In López, E. (ed.), Government Failure in the Legal System: A Public Choice Review of the Law. Independent Institute.Google Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P.. Forthcoming. Group Agency: The Possibility, Design and Status of Corporate Agents.Google Scholar
McCabe, K., Houser, D., Ryan, L., Smith, V., and Trouard, T.. 2001. “A Functional Imaging Study of Cooperation in Two-Person Reciprocal Exchange.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(4): 11832–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDougall, L. 2006. “Shirley McKie: Was it Really an Honest Mistake?” Sunday Herald, February 12.Google Scholar
McRoberts, F., Mills, S., and Possley, M.. 2004. “Forensics Under the Microscope: Unproven Techniques Sway Courts, Erode Justice.” Chicago Tribune, October 17.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1937/1957. Science and the Social Order. Reproduced in his Social Theory and Social Structure. Rev. ed. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J.. 1986. “Relying on Information of Interested Parties.” RAND Journal of Economics 17(1): 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moenssens, A. A. 1993. “Novel Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases: Some Words of Caution.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 84: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Justice. 1997. “The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases.” Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/97-04a/index.htmGoogle Scholar
Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Justice. 2004. “The FBI DNA Laboratory: A Review of Protocol and Practice.”Google Scholar
Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Justice. 2006. “A Review of the FBI's Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case: Unclassified Executive Summary.”Google Scholar
Peart, S. and Levy, D.. 2008 “Introduction to the Symposium on Ethics.” Eastern Economic Journal 34(1): 101–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, J. L. and Markham, P. N.. 1995a. “Crime Lab Proficiency Testing Results, 1978–1991, I: Identification and Classification of Physical Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(6): 994–1008.Google Scholar
Peterson, J. L. and Markham, P. N.. 1995b. “Crime Lab Proficiency Testing Results, 1978–1991, II: Resolving Questions of Common Origin.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 40(6): 1009–29.Google Scholar
Pyrek, K. M. 2007. Forensic Science Under Siege: The Challenges of Forensic Laboratories and the Medico-Legal Death Investigation System. Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1986. “Reply to Morton White.” In Hahn, L. E. & Schilpp, P. A. (eds.), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine, pp. 663–5. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. 1993. “Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics.” American Economic Review 83: 1281–1302.Google Scholar
Risinger, M., Saks, M. J., Thompson, W. C., and Rosenthal, R.. 2002. “The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion.” California Law Review 90: 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saks, M. J. 1998. “Merlin and Solomon: Lessons from the Law's Formative Encounters with Forensic Identification Science.” Hastings Law Journal 49: 1069–141.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. et al. 2001. “Model Prevention and Remedy of Erroneous Convictions Act.” Arizona State Law Journal 33: 665–718.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. J.. 2005. “The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science.” Science 309: 892–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schelling, T. C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schuetz, A. 1943. “The Problem of Rationality in the Social World.” Economica, N.S. 10(38): 130–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. L. 2003. “Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics.” American Economic Review 93: 465–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State of Illinois. 2002. Report of the Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment April 15.Google Scholar
State of Maryland v. Bryan Rose. 2007. Case K06-0545. Memorandum Decision, October 19.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. 2003. Thought in a Hostile World. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stiles, M. R., Levine, R. H., and Sarmousakis, P. A.. Government's Combined Report to the Court and Motions in Limine Concerning Fingerprint Evidence, United States v. Mitchell, No. 96-00407, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 2006, from http://www.clpex.comGoogle Scholar
van, Winden F. 1999. “Experimental Studies of Signaling Games.” In Luini, L. (ed.), Uncertain Decisions, Bridging Theory and Experiments, pp. 147–73. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar