Criticisms of the ethical and professional shortcomings of forensic consultation and expert testimony have long been the burden of forensic science. Forensic expert testimony derives its relevance from fidelity to the evidence and to the science. The very necessity of forensic science expertise – providing specialized knowledge to the courts where judges and juries lack such training – has enabled unscientific or Machiavellian expert testimony to contaminate or derail justice. An unsupervised process enables advocacy, money, prestige, and indirect validation for research agendas and grant support. An absence of accountability allows justice to be steered away from science by the scientists themselves.
Accountability is lacking within forensic science consultation and especially in the mental health disciplines. Expert witnesses, in contemporary American forensic science, are answerable only to themselves. A literature review reveals several peer review systems that hold expertise accountable for both written reports and spoken testimony. Advances of recent years demonstrate different ways forensic science consultation incorporates peer review. Peer reviewed forensic science is an important methodological solution for ineffective and unethical forensic science assessment, promoting integrity, quality, and confidence in justice.
Click here for the article.
