SWOT-analyse DNA activity
Publicatie | 04-09-2018
This SWOT analysis resulted from the DNA Expert Meeting organized by the NRGD in January 2018.
- Makes activity reporting explicit
- Makes people aware that Source and Activity level exist (and should not be confused)
- Difficult questions are addressed by experts instead of lawyers - Helps scientists answering questions from the defence/judge in a scientific way
- Addressing more relevant questions that can help the investigation further
- Better assistance of the courts and better informed decisions - Shows limitation of source level conclusions
- Absence of evidence can also be evaluated
- Scientifically supported
- Optimal use of the scientific evidence, put in the right perspective
- Science is developing fast
- Existing Framework for evaluation (ENFSI) o balanced reports
- Provides the scientist with a tool to stay within the limits of his/her knowledge
- Addresses both pros and defense alternatives
- Existing Case Assessment & Interpretation (former FSS model for a structured approach of case assessment)
- Allows a weight to be assigned to the finding then the truth of 2 propositions - convergence of opinions/ consistency in approach
- Lack of structured data for many cases
- Sharing of research data
- Lack of trained experts
- Complexity of interpretation
- Communication with lawyers/court o doesn’t understand language used in evidence/reports adequate training (both legal/experts!)
- Distinction of levels is sometimes hard to do
- Demand is unquantifiable
- Lack of knowledge does not stop some “experts”
- Be clear on lack thereof
- Consistency in approach
- Requires an alternative proposition
- Difficult to transpose data from literature, even if it does exist in specific casework
- Lack of transparency (reporters should write all relevant findings in the reports also when or why a conclusion cannot be drawn)
- Lack of specific info on details of scenario’s
- Implicit assumptions
- Poor connection to crime scene investigation (CSI) - lack of resources (budget) because activity reporting takes time
- International cooperation
- Quality improvement
- Reporting standards o brings results closer to considerations of the court
- Prevent misinterpretation
- Prevent miscarriages of justice
- Initiate more training and awareness of CJS partners
- Right person doing the activity work - It makes it easier to combine evidence
- Stimulate research and development:
- Drive the collection of the needed, relevant data
- Knowledge base
- International collaboration to acquire the data
- Quality assurance based on review of cases/reports/verdicts
- Raising the general level of understanding of the report
- Public confidence
- Victim assurance
- Train CSI and detectives on gathering specific info on timing/sequence of events
- Demand v supply
- Illusion of exactness
- Judge can’t judge experts
- Poor work may induce loss of trust
- If the court doesn’t understand the role of the scientist there will be confusion or misinterpretation
- Experts too passive to ask for case circumstances
- Shift of focus (bias) on ‘soft’ evidence
- Leaves more space for different interpretation of the results
- Risk of contextual bias
- Lack of awareness of crime scene people Investigate the wrong activity
- If we claim too much too early it might be inadmissible (rejected) - Adequate training
- Lack of funding for R&D