Global Journal of Nursing & Forensic Studies
Open Access

Forensic science; Forensic proof; CSI effect; Eyewitness testimony

Introduction

Forensic proof has been thought to be a number of the strongest proof admitted and judged within the room. DNA proof specifically has been thought-about the gold normal for rhetorical techniques for jurors. In fact, DNA has been found to own a bigger impact on guilty verdicts than different varieties of non-DNA rhetorical proof, demonstrating people’s confidence in DNA and their create mentally expectations that DNA proof is a lot of precise and discerning than non-DNA rhetorical proof, and thus, less probably to risk a coincident match. Analysis has indicated that jurors believe that DNA proof is a lot of reliable than it's going to be and don't perceive its potential unreliability [1]. However, there have conjointly been recent studies that have found that the lay public perceives rhetorical proof normally to be comparatively inaccurate and to involve high levels of human judgment. Overall, inaccurate perceptions or beliefs of rhetorical proof will have devastating effects, particularly once faulty rhetorical analyses end in miscarriages of justice. As such, there has been increasing interest in understanding however varied actors of the criminal justice system – like potential jury members, judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors – read rhetorical proof and whether or not they acknowledge the boundaries of such proof [2].

Forensic proof vs. spectator testimony

Prior work has indicated that sure varieties of rhetorical proof square measure perceived as a lot of correct and objective than others. Empirical studies evaluating the CSI impact usually examine DNA and fingerprint proof. Apparently, DNA and procedure was perceived because the 2 most correct rhetorical techniques out of the ten techniques evaluated, and these 2 varieties of proof were conjointly deemed foundationally valid within the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report. However, additionally to rhetorical proof, there square measure different varieties of proof that might be conferred throughout a case. Of explicit interest is however rhetorical proof is perceived compared to spectator testimony [3]. Varied studies have in-contestible that jurors understand each spectator testimony and rhetorical proof to be sturdy sorts of proof for trial decision-making. Spectator testimony one amongst the foremost convincing proof conferred to jurors and has traditionally been considered the gold normal. Moreover, eyewitnesses World Health Organization were a lot of proximate, and thus a lot of acquainted, with the litigant throughout the commission of the offense, like the victim of Associate in Nursing offense, is also perceived as a lot of correct in their descriptions of a litigant than watcher eyewitnesses; so, this kind of witness familiarity with the litigant has been shown to considerably increase the probability for and confidence in guilty verdicts, as compared to once an interloper was a watcher spectator. However, jurors usually believe spectator identifications to be a lot of reliable than they really square measure in point of fact. In fact, spectator error is one amongst the leading causes of wrongful convictions, with Associate in nursing calculable one in 3 eye witnesses creating Associate in nursing inaccurate identification [4].

Method

To evaluate however totally different sorts of rhetorical proof have an effect on selections on criminal guilt, participants were indiscriminately appointed to scan one amongst seven vignettes portraying a criminal offense and were then asked to answer constant set of queries in spite of the vignette. We have a tendency to used vignettes for 2 crimes wherever rhetorical proof is often collected throughout Associate in nursing investigation – murder and rape – and varied that type of proof was used throughout the hypothetic trial [5]. We have a tendency to utilized 2 sorts of rhetorical proof – DNA Associate in nursing fingerprints – and compare them against 2 non-forensic varieties of proof – testimony from an spectator and testimony from the victim. We selected DNA and fingerprint proof as a result among the foremost common varieties of proof collected in cases of rape or murder and so are probably to be employed in criminal cases wherever jurors’ perceptions of their importance can have an effect on whether or not the litigant is guilty or not. Past studies of however correct the overall public perceives rhetorical proof to be has found that DNA and fingerprints square measure thought-about the foremost correct or among the foremost correct rhetorical techniques [6]. Each vignette may be a story explaining the facts of the case. Following these facts is that the text “During the trial, the prosecution’s solely proof within the case was …” with the kind of rhetorical proof used substitution the ellipses. Whereas real-world criminal trials might have variety of sorts of proof attachment the litigant to the crime, we have a tendency to used solely one type of proof to isolate the impact of that proof on our participants’ selections on guilt and sentencing. During this changed vignette, a person enters a shop that contains a single store worker and one client within, murders the worker, and flees the shop. The potential varieties of proof during this vignette square measure “the customer’s spectator identification and testimony,” “DNA found on the murder weapon that was matched to the litigant,” and “a fingerprint found on the murder weapon that was matched to the litigant” [7].

Participants

We used Amazon’s Mechanic Turk platform to recruit participants. Mechanic Turk may be a web site that permits members of the overall public to perform easy tasks, like completes a survey, for tiny amounts of cash. Participants read an outline of the task on the Mechanical Turk web site then decide whether or not to proceed with the task or not. Once a participant determined to participate within the current study, a link within the description of the task directed them to the Qualtrics survey web site wherever they completed the survey [8]. Participants were restricted to adults residing within the us. and that they received up to $1 in compensation for finishing the survey. The study procedures were approved by the University of Pennsylvania’s institutional review board and Rutgers University’s institutional review board. 390 individuals completed the survey and submitted responses [9]. 6 All respondents answered the survey on April 9, 2020. We have a tendency to used 2 attention check inquiries to make sure that participants were reading the queries before responsive. The primary question of the survey when the introductory page that explained the aim of the survey asked what that purpose was. Any participant World Health Organization designated a response apart from “Decisions on guilt” was thought-about to own unsuccessful the eye check.7 Participants were then indiscriminately appointed to at least one of the seven vignette conditions [10]. The second attention check question asked that crime the litigant was charged with; Associate in nursing participant World Health Organization answered with a response apart from the crime represented within the participant’s vignette was deemed an attention check failure. 4 participants unsuccessful the primary attention checks and an extra 3 participants unsuccessful the second attention check. When removing these seven participants, there have been 383 participants whose responses were employed in this study [11].

Conclusion

Upon any examination, there have been no important variations between proof varieties on finding of fact call for murder. However, for rape, DNA proof was systematically related to higher odds of a guilty finding of fact than all different varieties of proof. DNA proof was conjointly systematically related to higher levels of confidence within the finding of fact call for rape, and was systematically related to higher odds of a guilty finding of fact than non-forensic proof for murder. To boot, victim spectator testimony was related to a better level of confidence in finding of fact call for rape [12]. Overall, the results recommend that rhetorical proof (and specifically, DNA) contains a sturdy role within the finding of fact part. In distinction, rhetorical science doesn't appear to play as sturdy of a job within the sentencing part. Neither variety of rhetorical science proof was related to any important amendment within the probably sentence length reportable by participants for murder or rape [13]. However, rhetorical will appear to extend the sentence length at individuals assume a litigant ought to receive, however with some caveats. Specifically, DNA proof was systematically found to extend the sentence length that respondents thought a litigant ought to get, however this impact was solely found for rape and only compared to non-forensic proof, whereas procedure was found to extend the sentence length that respondents thought a litigant ought to get, however just for rape and only compared to victim spectator testimony. In general, the results recommend that rhetorical proof doesn't appear to much have an effect on respondents’ sentencing selections [14]. whereas respondents believed that the litigant ought to have received an extended sentence once rhetorical proof was conferred in a very rape case compared to once non-forensic proof was conferred, this failed to match the probably sentence that respondents expected the litigant to receive. On condition that there have been no variations within the probably sentence that respondents believed the litigant would receive even once rhetorical proof was conferred, rhetorical proof might play a lot of crucial role throughout the decision stage for rape cases. It’s unclear why respondents’ preference for extended sentence failed to translate into extended probably sentence once rhetorical proof was provided. This finding might replicate respondents’ read that sentencing outcomes for rape cases tend to be comparatively lenient– so, recent high-profile rape cases might have contributed to the event or exacerbation of such perceptions. However, these findings might give some insight into what stage of the trial method rhetorical proof would be most impactful and for what varieties of crimes. The results of this study recommend that rhetorical proof would be most impactful throughout the decision stage and will play a lot of necessary role for rape than murder cases [15].

1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B 57(1): 289-300.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Berman GL, Narby DJ, Cutler BL (1995) Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors’ evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law Hum Behav 19(1): 79-88.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Berryessa CM (2017) Jury-eligible public attitudes toward biological risk factors for the development of criminal behavior and implications for capital sentencing. Criminal Justice Behav 44(8):1073-1100.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Berryessa CM (2018) The effects of psychiatric and “biological” labels on lay sentencing and punishment decisions. J Exp Criminol 14(2): 241-256.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Berryessa CM (2020) The effects of essentialist thinking toward biosocial risk factors for criminality and types of offending on lay punishment support . Behav Sci Law 38(4): 355-380.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Brewer N, Burke A (2002) Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law Hum Behav 26(3): 353-364.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Brewer N, Wells GL (2011) Eyewitness identification. Curr Directions Psychol Sci 20(1):24-27.

Google Scholar

8. Brigham JC, Bothwell RK (1983) The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law Hum Behav 7(1): 19.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Buchanan L, Bui Q, Patel J (2020) Black lives matter may be the largest movement in U.S. history.

Google Scholar

10. Clancy D, Bull R (2015) The effect on mock-juror decision-making of power-of-speech within eyewitness testimony and types of scientific evidence. Psychiatry Psychol Law 22 (3): 425-435.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

11. Cole SA, Dioso-Villa R (2006) CSI and its effects: media, juries, and the burden of proof. New Engl Law Rev 41: 435.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

12. Eatley G, Hueston HH, Price K (2016) A meta-analysis of the CSI effect: the impact of popular media on jurors’ perception of forensic evidence. Politics Bureaucracy Justice 5(2): 45.

Index at , Google Scholar

13. Ferguson PA, Duthie DA, Graf RG (1987) Attribution of responsibility to rapist and victim: the influence of victim’s attractiveness and rape-related information. J Interpersonal Violence 2(3): 243-250.

Google Scholar

14. McDonald JT, Kim YC, Yasinsac A (2008) Software issues in digital forensics, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review. 42 (3): 29-40.

Google Scholar

15. Atkinson JS (2019) Proof is not binary: The pace and complexity of computer systems and the challenges digital evidence poses to the legal system. Birkbeck Law Review 2: 245-262.

Google Scholar