G2TT
来源类型Report
规范类型报告
来源IDRR-804-1-NIJ
The Potential of Blind Collaborative Justice: Testing the Impact of Expert Blinding and Consensus Building on the Validity of Forensic Testimony
Carolyn Wong; Eyal Aharoni; Gursel Rafig oglu Aliyev; Jacqueline Du Bois
发表日期2015-08-07
出版年2015
页码39
语种英语
结论

Expert Consensus Feedback Resulted in Improved Performance

  • Expert consensus feedback regarding the correct response to the reasoning problem demonstrated the predicted significant effect on response errors: Delivery of feedback resulted in improved performance.

An Advantage Due to Blinding Was Not Observed

  • There was modest evidence that an expert's mere knowledge of the hiring counsel (prosecution vs. defense) could influence probabilistic reasoning. Increased accuracy tended to be higher in the party least favored by the evidence (the defense, in this case), suggesting a greater motivation to evaluate the evidence critically.
  • However, there was no conclusive evidence that blinding experts to their party representation conferred an advantage — accuracy within this condition was only marginally greater than the prosecution condition and not greater than that of the defense.
摘要

Biased expert testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions, and new techniques are needed to reduce such biases. This study conducted an experimental investigation of two potential contributors to biased testimony within adversarial litigation involving forensic evidence: (1) experts' knowledge of their party representation (i.e., prosecution vs. defense counsel), and (2) lack of input from the relevant scientific community. A sample of 580 scientists was asked to read a vignette about a hypothetical criminal case and solve a statistical reasoning problem bearing on the case evidence. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three types of party representation (prosecution, defense, or blinded). Approximately half the participants in each representation were given the correct solution in advance of their responses, The correct solution was derived by an independent panel of 12 experts, and presented as "consensus feedback." The other half of participants in each representation received the consensus feedback after providing an initial response, and received an opportunity to change their initial response following that feedback. We found no evidence of an effect of blinding on accuracy. The results revealed a consistent, positive effect of expert consensus feedback on response accuracy. We conclude that expert consensus feedback could improve the validity of expert testimony, and discuss the importance of educating scientists about ways to reduce testimonial bias.

目录
  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Methods and Data Collection

  • Chapter Three

    Analyses and Findings

  • Chapter Four

    Conclusions and Closing Remarks

  • Appendix

    Supplemental Analysis

主题Civil Law ; Criminal Justice ; Criminal Law ; Delphi Method ; Expert Evidence
URLhttps://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR804-1.html
来源智库RAND Corporation (United States)
资源类型智库出版物
条目标识符http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/522819
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Carolyn Wong,Eyal Aharoni,Gursel Rafig oglu Aliyev,et al. The Potential of Blind Collaborative Justice: Testing the Impact of Expert Blinding and Consensus Building on the Validity of Forensic Testimony. 2015.
条目包含的文件
文件名称/大小 资源类型 版本类型 开放类型 使用许可
RAND_RR804-1.pdf(435KB)智库出版物 限制开放CC BY-NC-SA浏览
x1495316343762.jpg.p(2KB)智库出版物 限制开放CC BY-NC-SA浏览
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Carolyn Wong]的文章
[Eyal Aharoni]的文章
[Gursel Rafig oglu Aliyev]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Carolyn Wong]的文章
[Eyal Aharoni]的文章
[Gursel Rafig oglu Aliyev]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Carolyn Wong]的文章
[Eyal Aharoni]的文章
[Gursel Rafig oglu Aliyev]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
文件名: RAND_RR804-1.pdf
格式: Adobe PDF
文件名: x1495316343762.jpg.pagespeed.ic.rnr37WAnW3.jpg
格式: JPEG

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。