Abstract
Increasingly, judges are asked to act as gatekeepers between law and science, using the rules of admissibility to perform what could be understood as a form of “secondary forensic information quality assurance”. To exercise their gate keeping function and to ensure that the jury is only exposed to the “best evidence (possible)”, judges rely on other primary gatekeepers, amongst them forensic regulators, scientific communities and academic publishers. This paper addresses how digital media and new forms of publishing are changing the nature of these gatekeepers, focusing in particular on how they change the role of peer review as a major quality assurance mechanism used by the courts at present. Data mining social media also provides us with both quantitatively and qualitatively new information about scientists, scientific communities and the practice of science. This paper argues that the discourse on information quality can be one avenue to make more systematic use of these data, helping to address long-known shortcomings in the justice system.
Research for this paper was supported by the RCUK funded CREATe network, www.create.ac.uk. I’m particularly grateful for the comments and help received from Laurence Diver.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
These are available from 1674–1913 at http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/
- 2.
[2010] EWCA 2439.
- 3.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
- 4.
- 5.
Frye v. United States 293 F. 1013.
- 6.
Ibid. at 1014.
- 7.
For a blog based account, see http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2010/12/21/parallel-universes-arsenic-and/; or see Zimmer. “The Discovery of Arsenic-Based Twitter” (Slate.com, 27 May 2011, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2011/05/the_discovery_of_arsenicbased_twitter.html).
- 8.
References
Boden, M. (1961). The paradox of explanation (Vol. 62). Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, The Aristotelian Society (Blackwell).
Bowers, C. M. (2006). Problem-based analysis of bitemark misidentifications: The role of DNA. Forensic Science International, 159, S104–S109.
Broeders, A. P. A. (2006). Of earprints, fingerprints, scent dogs, cot deaths and cognitive contamination – A brief look at the present state of play in the forensic arena. Forensic Science International, 159(2), 148–157.
Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1323–1329.
Bushman, R. M., & Piotroski, J. D. (2006). Financial reporting incentives for conservative accounting: The influence of legal and political institutions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42(1), 107–148.
Chan, E. J. (1995). The brave new world of Daubert: True peer review, editorial peer review, and scientific validity. New York University Law Review, 70, 100.
Enserink, M. (2001). Peer review and quality: A dubious connection? Science, 293(5538), 2187–2188.
Faigman, D. L. (2013). The Daubert revolution and the birth of modernity: Managing scientific evidence in the age of science. University of California Davis Law Review, 46(3), 893–931.
Faigman, D. L., et al. (2006). Modern scientific evidence. St. Paul: West Group.
Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3), 891–904.
Franklin, J. (2011). The objective Bayesian conceptualisation of proof and reference class problems. Sydney Law Review, 33, 545.
Giannelli, P. (2011). Wrongful convictions and forensic science: The need to regulate crime labs. North Carolina Law Review, 86, 163.
Gill, P., Evett, I. W., Woodroffe, S., Lygo, J. E., Millican, E., & Webster, M. (1991). Databases, quality control and interpretation of DNA profiling in the Home Office Forensic Science Service. Electrophoresis, 12(2–3), 204–209.
Grand, A., et al. (2012). Open science a new “trust technology”? Science Communication, 34(5), 679–689.
Grossman, A. M. (2004). No, don’t IM me-instant messaging, authentication, and the best evidence rule. George Mason Law Review, 13, 1309.
Gundelach, A. (1989). Lawyers’ reasoning and scientific proof: A cautionary tale in forensic odontology. The Journal of Forensic Odonto-stomatology, 7(2), 11.
Haack, S. (2003). Inquiry and advocacy, fallibilism and finality: culture and inference in science and the law. Law, Probability and Risk, 2(3), 205–214.
Haack, S. (2006). Peer review and publication: Lessons for lawyers. Stetson Law Review, 36, 789.
Harley, D., et al. (2007). The influence of academic values on scholarly publication and communication practices. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(2). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0010.204.
Huber, P. W. (1993). Galileo’s revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
İşcan, M. Y., & Miller‐Shaivitz, P. (1984). Determination of sex from the tibia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 64(1), 53–57.
Judson, H. F. (1994). Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association-US Edition, 272(2), 92–95.
Kaye, D. H., & Smith, M. E. (2003). DNA identification databases: Legality, legitimacy, and the case for population-wide coverage. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 413.
Kenneally, E. (2001). Gatekeeping out of the box: Open source software as a mechanism to assess reliability for digital evidence. Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, 6(13). http://www.vjolt.net/vol6/issue3/v6i3-a13-Kenneally.html. Accessed 4 Oct 2013.
Lacko, M. V. (2004). The data quality act: Prologue to a farce or a tragedy? Emory Law Journal, 53, 305.
Langbein, J. H. (1996). Historical foundations of the law of evidence: A view from the Ryder sources. Columbia Law Review, 96, 1168–1202.
Malkoc, E., & Neuteboom, W. (2007). The current status of forensic science laboratory accreditation in Europe. Forensic Science International, 167(2), 121–126.
Mnookin, J. L. (2007). Expert evidence, partisanship, and epistemic competence. Brooklyn Law Review, 73, 1009.
Neis, P., & Zipf, A. (2012). Analyzing the contributor activity of a volunteered geographic information project—The case of OpenStreetMap. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 1(2), 146–165.
Olsson, J. (2008). Forensic linguistics. London: Continuum.
Omand, D., Bartlett, J., & Miller, C. (2012). Introducing Social Media Intelligence (SOCMINT). Intelligence and National Security, 27(6), 801–823.
Penders, J., & Verstraete, A. (2006). Laboratory guidelines and standards in clinical and forensic toxicology. Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 11(6), 284–290.
Pfeifer, M. P., & Snodgrass, G. L. (1990). The continued use of retracted, invalid scientific literature. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1420–1423.
Redmayne, M., Roberts, P., Aitken, C., & Jackson, G. (2011). Forensic science evidence in question. Criminal Law Review, 5, 347–356.
Risinger, D. M. (2000). Navigating expert reliability: Are criminal standards of certainty being left on the dock. Albany Law Review, 64, 99.
Rudman, J. (2012). The state of non-Traditional authorship attribution studies—2012: Some problems and solutions. English Studies, 93(3), 259–274.
Saxe, L., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1999). Admissibility of polygraph tests: The application of scientific standards post-Daubert. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(1), 203.
Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI effect: Popular fiction about forensic science affects the public’s expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics, 47, 357–364.
Shapiro, S. A. (2003). Information quality act and environmental protection: The perils of reform by appropriations rider. William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, 28, 339.
Shelton, D. E. (2008). The ‘CSI-effect’: Does it really exist. National Institute of Justice Journal, 25, 1–7.
Steyn, M., & İşcan, M. Y. (1997). Sex determination from the femur and tibia in south African whites. Forensic Science International, 90(1), 111–119.
Tillers, P. (2005). If wishes were horses: Discursive comments on attempts to prevent individuals from being unfairly burdened by their reference classes. Law, Probability and Risk, 4(1–2), 33–49.
Twining, W. (1994). Rethinking evidence: Exploratory essays. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Tobin, W. A., & Duerfeldt, W. (2002). How probative is comparative bullet lead analysis. Criminal Justice, 17, 26.
Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9(1), 66–100.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schafer, B. (2014). Information Quality and Evidence Law: A New Role for Social Media, Digital Publishing and Copyright Law?. In: Floridi, L., Illari, P. (eds) The Philosophy of Information Quality. Synthese Library, vol 358. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07121-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07121-3_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07120-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07121-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)