• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Frontiers in Genetics >Evaluation of Forensic DNA Traces When Propositions of Interest Relate to Activities: Analysis and Discussion of Recurrent Concerns
【2h】

Evaluation of Forensic DNA Traces When Propositions of Interest Relate to Activities: Analysis and Discussion of Recurrent Concerns

机译：当感兴趣的命题与活动有关时法医DNA痕迹的评估：经常性问题的分析和讨论

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

When forensic scientists evaluate and report on the probative strength of single DNA traces, they commonly rely on only one number, expressing the rarity of the DNA profile in the population of interest. This is so because the focus is on propositions regarding the source of the recovered trace material, such as “the person of interest is the source of the crime stain.” In particular, when the alternative proposition is “an unknown person is the source of the crime stain,” one is directed to think about the rarity of the profile. However, in the era of DNA profiling technology capable of producing results from small quantities of trace material (i.e., non-visible staining) that is subject to easy and ubiquitous modes of transfer, the issue of source is becoming less central, to the point that it is often not contested. There is now a shift from the question “whose DNA is this?” to the question “how did it get there?” As a consequence, recipients of expert information are now very much in need of assistance with the evaluation of the meaning and probative strength of DNA profiling results when the competing propositions of interest refer to different activities. This need is widely demonstrated in day-to-day forensic practice and is also voiced in specialized literature. Yet many forensic scientists remain reluctant to assess their results given propositions that relate to different activities. Some scientists consider evaluations beyond the issue of source as being overly speculative, because of the lack of relevant data and knowledge regarding phenomena and mechanisms of transfer, persistence and background of DNA. Similarly, encouragements to deal with these activity issues, expressed in a recently released European guideline on evaluative reporting (Willis et al., ), which highlights the need for rethinking current practice, are sometimes viewed skeptically or are not considered feasible. In this discussion paper, we select and discuss recurrent skeptical views brought to our attention, as well as some of the alternative solutions that have been suggested. We will argue that the way forward is to address now, rather than later, the challenges associated with the evaluation of DNA results (from small quantities of trace material) in light of different activities to prevent them being misrepresented in court.
机译：法医科学家评估和报告单个DNA痕迹的证明强度时，通常仅依靠一个数字，即可表达感兴趣人群中DNA谱的稀有性。之所以如此，是因为重点在于有关回收的痕量材料来源的主张，例如“感兴趣的人是犯罪污点的来源”。特别是，当替代性命题是“一个未知的人是犯罪污点的源头”时，人们会直接考虑该轮廓的稀有性。然而，在能够从少量痕量物质（即不可见的染色）中产生结果的DNA谱图分析技术时代，这种痕量物质易于进行简单的无处不在的转移，到现在为止，源头问题变得不再那么重要了。常常没有争议。现在已经从“这是谁的DNA？”这个问题转变了。问题“它是怎么到达那里的？”结果，当感兴趣的竞争性命题涉及不同的活动时，专家信息的接收者现在非常需要帮助评估DNA谱分析结果的含义和证明强度。这种需求在日常的法务实践中得到了充分证明，并且在专门的文献中也得到了表达。然而，鉴于涉及不同活动的主张，许多法医科学家仍然不愿评估其结果。一些科学家认为，超出来源问题的评估过于投机，因为缺乏有关DNA转移的现象和机制，持久性和背景的相关数据和知识。同样，在最近发布的欧洲评估报告指南（Willis等人）中表达的鼓励处理这些活动问题的方法强调了对当前实践的重新思考的必要性，有时被怀疑或认为不可行。在本讨论文件中，我们选择并讨论了引起我们注意的经常性怀疑观点，以及已提出的一些替代解决方案。我们将争辩说，前进的道路是现在而不是以后解决与DNA结果评估（来自少量痕量物质）相关的挑战，以防止不同的活动在法庭上被歪曲。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号