A tale of two approaches – the NAS report and the law commission consultation paper on forensic science

Rhonda Wheate

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of “scientific" evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence.

Original languageEnglish
JournalInternational Commentary on Evidence
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2009

Fingerprint

Law
science
legal proceedings
Academy of Sciences
evidence

Keywords

  • forensic science
  • criminal law

Cite this

@article{ead45c21ae8e4a249a6f9ab52de501e8,
title = "A tale of two approaches – the NAS report and the law commission consultation paper on forensic science",
abstract = "Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of “scientific{"} evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence.",
keywords = "forensic science, criminal law",
author = "Rhonda Wheate",
note = "<p>Originally published in: International Commentary on Evidence (2009), 7 (2), article 3.</p>",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2202/1554-4567.1110",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
journal = "International Commentary on Evidence",
issn = "1554-4567",
publisher = "De Gruyter",
number = "2",

}

A tale of two approaches – the NAS report and the law commission consultation paper on forensic science. / Wheate, Rhonda.

In: International Commentary on Evidence, Vol. 7, No. 2, 01.01.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A tale of two approaches – the NAS report and the law commission consultation paper on forensic science

AU - Wheate, Rhonda

N1 - <p>Originally published in: International Commentary on Evidence (2009), 7 (2), article 3.</p>

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of “scientific" evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence.

AB - Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of “scientific" evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence.

KW - forensic science

KW - criminal law

U2 - 10.2202/1554-4567.1110

DO - 10.2202/1554-4567.1110

M3 - Article

VL - 7

JO - International Commentary on Evidence

JF - International Commentary on Evidence

SN - 1554-4567

IS - 2

ER -