《刑事司法中的法庭科学:确保形态特征比对方法的科学有效性》的反响与启示

Responses to and inspirations of the PCAST Report"Forensic science in criminal courts:Ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods"

为回应时任美国总统奥巴马关于法庭科学证据科学性的提问“是否有更好的方法来提高法庭科学的科学有效性”,总统科技顾问委员会重点对刑事司法实践中运用较为普遍的法庭科学形态特征比对方法展开了调查研究,发布了《刑事司法中的法庭科学:确保形态特征比对方法的科学有效性》的报告,回顾总结了有关形态特征比对方法的科学研究和实践工作,强调了形态特征比对方法的科学有效性在司法过程中的重要意义,重点论述了该方法科学有效性的评价标准及其在七种具体方法中的应用,并为联邦政府促进该方法在法庭上的严格使用提出了建议。报告发布后,引发了广泛的讨论,对报告中一致认可的就是要加大经费投入和进行多方面的继续研究,在其他方面均有争论,主要体现在报告工作组人员结构及其所审查的文献资料和科学研究不能确保报告内容的客观公正,并且将“黑箱研究”作为唯一的评价标准也有失偏颇,以及对鉴定人的主观经验和能力测试存在认知偏见等。报告内容和广泛讨论进一步推动了法庭科学形态特征比对方法发展的步伐,建立科学的客观量化方法和规范的主观经验方法,实现主客观方法的高度融合,提高特征比对方法的科学性,推动形态特征比对方法从经验走向科学,促进法庭在事实裁定和证据采信方面的进步,避免司法错案的出现。

In response to former President Barack Obama’s question about the scientificity of forensic evidence,"Is there a better way to strengthen the validity of forensic science",the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology focused on the investigation and study of forensic science feature-comparison methods,which is widely used in criminal justice practice,and released the report"Forensic Science in Criminal Courts:Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods"in September 2016.The PCAST Report reviewed and summarized the scientific research and practice on the feature-comparison methods,emphasized the importance of the scientific validity of the feature-comparison methods in the judicial process,and focused on the evaluation criteria of the scientific validity of the feature-comparison methods and its application in seven specific methods.It also put forward suggestions for the federal government to promote the stringent use of feature-comparison methods in court.After the Report was published,it led to extensive discussions.The agreement on the Report was to increase funding and conduct continuous research in many aspects.But there were debates in other aspects,mainly reflected in the staff structure of the Report working group and the failure of the reviewed literature and scientific research to ensure the objective and fairness of the content.Otherwise,regarding"black box"studies as the only evaluation standard is also biased.In addition,there were cognitive biases on the appraisers’subjective experience and proficiency tests.The content of the Report and extensive discussions will further promote the development of forensic science feature-comparison methods through the establishment of scientific objective quantitative method and standard method of subjective experience,and then to realize the fusion of subjective and objective methods in order to promote feature-comparison methods from experience to science.It will promote the progress of the court in fact finding and evidence admissibility,which avoids the occurrence of judicially misjudged cases.