Hackman, Lucina

Menȝies, Simon-Lewis

Vincent, Benjamin

English

Menzies, Simon-Lewis 

Discovery Research Portal

• Al-Fedaghi, S. (2012). A conceptual foundation for the Shannon-Weaver model of communication. International Journal of Soft Computing. 7:1. 12-19.• Amorim, A., Crespillo, M., Luque, J. A., Prieto, L., Garcia, O., Gusmao, L., Aler, M., Barrio, P. A., Saragoni, V. G. & Pinto, N. (2016). Formulation and communication of evaluative forensic science expert opinion - A GHEP-ISFG contribution to the establishment of standards. Forensic Science International Genetics. 25. 210-213.• Arscott, E., Morgan, R., Meakin, G. & French, J. (2017). Understanding forensic expert evaluative evidence: A study of the perception of verbal expressions of the strength of evidence. Science and Justice. 57:3. 221-227.• Bowman, J.P & Targowski, A.S. (1973). Modelling the Communication Process: The Map is Not the Territory. The Journal of Business Communication. 24:4. 21-34. • Edmond, G. (2012). Is reliability sufficient? The Law Commission and expert evidence in international and interdisciplinary perspective (Part 1). The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 16:1. 30-65.• Fiske, J. (2002). Introduction to Communication Studies. London: Taylor and Francis.• Forensic Science Regulator. (2021). Forensic Science Regulator Codes of Practice and Conduct: Development of Evaluative Opinions. [Online]. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/960051/FSR-C-118_Interpretation_Appendix_Issue_1__002_.pdf. Accessed on 30 July 2021. • Garrett, B. L. & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions. Virginia Law Review. 95:1. 1-98.• Howes, L. M., Julian, R., Kelty, S. F., Kemp, N. & Kirkbride, P. (2014a). The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report users: Reports of DNA analysis. Forensic Science International. 237. 7-18.• Howes, L. M., Kirkbride, K. P., Kelty, S. F., Julian, R. & Kemp, N. (2014b). The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report users: Reports of forensic comparison of glass. Forensic Science International. 236. 54-66.• Howes, L. M. (2015a). The communication of forensic science in the criminal justice system: A review of theory and proposed directions for research. Science and Justice. 55:2. 145-154.• Howes, L. M. (2015b). A step towards increased understanding by non-scientists of expert reports: Recommendations for readability. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 47:4. 456-468.• Howes, L. M. (2017). 'Sometimes I give up on the report and ring the scientist': bridging the gap between what forensic scientists write and what police investigators read. Policing and Society. 27:5. 541-559.• Howes, L. M. (2019). Trends and issues in the communication of forensic science. Forensic Science International. 304.• Howes, L. M. & Kemp, N. (2016). Discord in the Communication of Forensic Science: Can the Science of Language Help Foster Shared Understanding? Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 36:1. 96-111.• Jamieson, A. (2002). Why do we need good forensic science? Science and Justice. Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 42:1. 45-49.• Kelly, P. M. (1967). Communications, the police, and the Crime Commission: The present status of police communications —a multiplicity of small, overlapping networks, often characterized by severe traffic congestion and by operational inadequacy—indicates a vital need for major steps to improve the situation. IEEE Spectrum. 4:5. 83-92.• Lasswell, H.D. The structure and function of communication in society in L. Bryson (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas: A Series of Addresses, Harper, New York (1948), pp. 37-51.• Martire, K. A. (2018). Clear communication through clear purpose: understanding statistical statements made by forensic scientists. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 50:6. 619-627.• Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Sayle, M. & Newell, B. R. (2014). On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Science International. 240. 61-68.• Martire, K. A. & Watkins, I. (2015). Perception problems of the verbal scale: A reanalysis and application of a membership function approach. Science and Justice. 55:4. 264-273.• Metcalfe, J. (2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science. 28:4. 382-400.• Shannon, W. (1948).  A mathematical theory of communication in Tech. J., 27 (1948), pp. 379-423.• Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Illinois.• Thompson, W. C. & Newman, E. J. (2015). Lay Understanding of Forensic Statistics: Evaluation of Random Match Probabilities, Likelihood Ratios, and Verbal Equivalents. Law and Human Behaviour. 39:4. 332-349.The aim of this project is to determine to what extent, if any, variations in methods of communication of uncertainty affects decision-making in criminal justice process and the confidence in those decisions. This project will gain insight into that decision-making process by gathering data from members of the public, reflecting the role of non-scientists when presented with forensic science opinions. Decisions, Decisions: The Role of Scientific Evidence Communication on Prosecutorial Decision-MakingSimon-Lewis Menzies1, Prof Lucina Hackman1, Dr Benjamin Vincent21 Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science, University of Dundee2 Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Dundee• Communication studies has roots across many disciplines from the social sciences to the study of languages as well as mathematics and general science (Al-Fedaghi, 2012; Bowman & Targowski, 1973; Fiske, 2002; Lasswell, 1948; Shannon, 1948; Shannon & Weaver, 1949). • Each of these fields has their own distinctive definitions of what constitutes effective communication between parties (Fiske, 2002; Howes, 2015a; Howes, 2015b). • It is crucial that scientific evidence testimony is accurately communicated and understood at all stages of the investigatory and prosecution processes to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions and increase the efficacy of investigations (Amorim et al, 2016; Garrett & Neufield, 2009; Jamieson, 2002). • Pivotal when examining the communication of scientific evidence and the subsequent decision-making process, is consideration that effective communication to non-subject matter experts is not guaranteed (Edmond, 2012; Howes et al, 2014a; Howes et al, 2014b; Kelty et al, 2018; Martire, 2018; Thompson & Newman, 2015). • Previous research indicates that language and communication method modification can affect the decision-making process by criminal justice officials (Howes, 2019; Howes, 2017).• The same has been found in the communications and decision-making processes of subject matter experts to non-subject matter experts (Howes, 2016; Howes, 2015a; Howes, 2015b). For anyone attempting to interpret the probative value of scientific evidence it can be difficult to comprehend what is meant by verbal indicators and probability statements (Arscott et al, 2017; Martire, 2018; Martire & Watkins, 2015; Martire et al, 2014; Metcalf, 2019).• There remains a gap in the literature examining these issues in a post-devolution era of criminal justice in Scotland. • Since the decision-makers at both Police Scotland and the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service are not scientific experts, this study will examine the impacts, if any, on varying communication methodologies of scientific evidence on lay people without specialist knowledge of scientific evidence.• If there is a relationship between decision-making and the decision to prosecute a case and the way that the uncertainty of scientific evidence is communicated in that case, there could be implications and recommendations for the criminal justice process. Hypothesis• Our hypothesis is that where categorical indicators are used in place of probability statements, this would correspond with a higher rate of decisions to prosecute as well as confidence in that decision.Participants, Variables, and Materials• The number of participants is expected to be high given this experiment will run for two months following ethical approval. • All data will be anonymised from the outset with only a small number of demographical variables involved. Procedure• Participants will be asked to read two expert reports in turn relating to a crime in which DNA evidence had been gathered. • The evidence has been reported in alignment with the regulations set out in the Forensic Science Regulator Code of Practice and Conduct for Development of Evaluative Opinions.• Both reports are identical except for a variation in the communication of the conclusions of the scientific evidence. • After each report, participants will be asked a binary Yes or No question about whether or not they would proceed to prosecute the case.• Participants will also asked to rate their confidence of that decision on a 7-point Likert Scale ranging from Extremely Unconfident, Unconfident, Somewhat Unconfident, Neither Confident or Unconfident, Somewhat Confident, Confident and Extremely Confident. • This data will then examined for associations against demographic variables in addition to the central test against communication method. • This poster is preliminary in nature as, at the time of submission, ethical approval has not been granted by the home institution. • This poster, however, outlines the context and rationale of the current study and establishes the need for further research into decision-making by Prosecutorial officials. • It is anticipated that this experiment will launch around the time of the SPUDM 2021+ Conference. Aim of StudyIntroductionSimon-Lewis Menzies MSc, BSc (Hons)080007503@dundee.ac.ukContact InformationReferencesDiscussionMethodologyRationaleCommunication of Scientific EvidenceDecision to Prosecute a CaseConfidence in Decision to Prosecute a CaseCategorical IndicatorsHigher Decision Rate to Prosecute a CaseHigher Confidence in Decision to Prosecute a CaseTwo expert reports were producedForensic Science Regulator guide usedOne Categorical and One ProbabilityJISC Online SurveyAgeGender IdentityEducation LevelEmployment SectorPrevious Jury ServiceScientific Evidence CommunicationDecision MakingSubject Matter Experts & Non-Subject Matter Experts

Decisions, Decisions:The Role of Scientific Evidence Communication on Prosecutorial Decision-Making

https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/files/66609257/SLM_SPUDM_2021_Poster_Horizontal_MkIII.pdf

Decisions, Decisions:The Role of Scientific Evidence Communication on Prosecutorial Decision-Making

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Discovery Research Portal

Discovery Research Portal