Cognitive neuroscience in forensic science: understanding and utilizing the human element

The human element plays a critical role in forensic science. It is not limited only to issues relating to forensic decision-making, such as bias, but also relates to most aspects of forensic work (some of which even take place before a crime is ever committed or long after the verification of the forensic conclusion). In this paper, I explicate many aspects of forensic work that involve the human element and therefore show the relevance (and potential contribution) of cognitive neuroscience to forensic science. The 10 aspects covered in this paper are proactive forensic science, selection during recruitment, training, crime scene investigation, forensic decision-making, verification and conflict resolution, reporting, the role of the forensic examiner, presentation in court and judicial decisions. As the forensic community is taking on the challenges introduced by the realization that the human element is critical for forensic work, new opportunities emerge that allow for considerable improvement and enhancement of the forensic science endeavour.

[1]  W. Thompson.  What role should investigative facts play in the evaluation of scientific evidence? , 2011 .

[2]  Joseph Almog,et al.  Forensic Science Does Not Start in the Lab: The Concept of Diagnostic Field Tests * , 2006, Journal of forensic sciences.

[3]  I. Dror.  Practical Solutions to Cognitive and Human Factor Challenges in Forensic Science , 2013 .

[4]  Jeff Kukucka.  The Journey or the Destination? Disentangling Process and Outcome in Forensic Identification , 2014 .

[5]  John E. Stewart,et al.  Defendant's Attractiveness as a Factor in the Outcome of Criminal Trials: An Observational Study1 , 1980 .

[6]  I. Evett,et al.  The nature of forensic science opinion--a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings. , 2006, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[7]  I. Dror,et al.  The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. , 2013 .

[8]  I. Dror,et al.  The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  The Use of Technology in Human Expert Domains: Challenges and Risks Arising from the Use of Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems in Forensic Science , 2010 .

[10]  Richard L. Brunelle.  Ink Dating—The State of the Art , 1992 .

[11]  Itiel E. Dror,et al.  Minimizing Contextual Bias in Forensic Casework , 2015 .

[12]  Thomas Bingham.  The Judge as Juror: the Judicial Determination of Factual Issues , 1985 .

[13]  B. Found,et al.  The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[14]  M.Sc.Dent. Matt Blenkin B.D.Sc..  Context Effects and Observer Bias—Implications for Forensic Odontology , 2011 .

[15]  I. Dror,et al.  The Impact of Human–Technology Cooperation and Distributed Cognition in Forensic Science: Biasing Effects of AFIS Contextual Information on Human Experts * , 2012, Journal of forensic sciences.

[16]  Daniel C. Murrie,et al.  Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them? , 2013, Psychological science.

[17]  Stanley L Brodsky,et al.  Expert witness confidence and juror personality: their impact on credibility and persuasion in the courtroom. , 2009, The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

[18]  B. Newell,et al.  The psychology of interpreting expert evaluative opinions , 2013 .

[19]  Jane Taylor,et al.  Context Effects and Observer Bias—Implications for Forensic Odontology , 2012, Journal of forensic sciences.

[20]  Simon Ford,et al.  Sequential Unmasking: A Means of Minimizing Observer Effects in Forensic DNA Interpretation , 2008, Journal of forensic sciences.

[21]  I. Dror,et al.  Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. , 2006, Forensic science international.

[22]  Perry D. Klein.  Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-To-Learn , 1999 .

[23]  Itiel Dror,et al.  The ambition to be scientific: human expert performance and objectivity. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[24]  I. Dror,et al.  Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. , 2011, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[25]  C. Aitken,et al.  De Finetti's subjectivism, the assessment of probabilities and the evaluation of evidence: a commentary for forensic scientists , 2001 .

[26]  Sherry Nakhaeizadeh,et al.  Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[27]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Meta‐analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts , 2008, Journal of forensic sciences.

[28]  Itiel Dror,et al.  Letter to the Editor—Combating Bias: The Next Step in Fighting Cognitive and Psychological Contamination , 2012, Journal of forensic sciences.

[29]  Paolo Garbolino,et al.  The subjectivist interpretation of probability and the problem of individualisation in forensic science. , 2013, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[30]  L. Moxey,et al.  Perception problems of the verbal scale. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[31]  L. Butt.  The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions—Commentary by a forensic examiner. , 2013 .

[32]  J Almog,et al.  Proactive forensic science: a novel class of cathinone precursors. , 2014, Forensic science international.

[33]  J. Stewart.  Appearance and Punishment: The Attraction-Leniency Effect in the Courtroom , 1985 .

[34]  F. Strack,et al.  Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making , 2006, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[35]  Joseph Almog.  Forensics as a proactive science. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[36]  B. Found.  Deciphering the human condition: the rise of cognitive forensics , 2015 .