Search results

In today's society with concern for crime and violence increasing and court television and celebrity trials bringing the criminal justice system, courtroom procedures, and rules of evidence into our living rooms, there is an increased need for reliable information about issues that are the core of forensic science: crime scene investigation and the collection and scientific analysis of physical evidence used in trials.

Briefly introduces the concept of forensic psychology, looking at areas such as stalking behaviour, self‐mutilation, and execution competency. Suggests that the forensic psychiatrist needs to remain up to date with recent sexual harassment legislation, the use of neuropsychological testing and the assessment of child abuse. Covers other subjects including hate crime on the Internet, and psychological autopsy. Concludes that to uphold the high principles required by law and to withstand scrutiny by defence lawyers, forensic psychology has defined standards by which to judge a persion and studies continue to develop these measures.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss key risk factors in the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system by adopting a holistic and systemic approach that examines the collection and use of forensic evidence from crime scene to court.

The research on which the paper is based was a mixed-method five-year study of the effectiveness of forensic science in the criminal justice system in Australia using qualitative and quantitative methods. The paper draws on the in-depth analysis of qualitative data from 11 case studies of investigations of serious crime to identify key risk factors in the use of forensic science from crime scene to court.

Six key risk factors in the forensic process from crime scene to court are identified: low level of forensic awareness among first responders; crime scene examiners (CSEs) as technicians rather than professionals; inefficient and/or ineffective laboratory processes; limited forensic literacy among key actors in the criminal justice system; poor communication between key actors in the criminal justice system; and, financial resources not directed at the front end of the forensic process. Overall the findings demonstrate that forensic science is not well embedded in the criminal justice system.

The paper suggests that the risks inherent in the current practice of forensic science in the criminal justice system can be reduced dramatically through: forensic awareness training among first responders; the professionalisation of CSEs; continued improvements in efficiency and effectiveness at the laboratory with a focus on timeliness and quality; greater forensic literacy among actors in the criminal justice system; appropriate avenues of communication between agencies, practitioners and policymakers in the criminal justice system; and increased allocation of resources to the front end of the forensic process.

By adopting a holistic, systemic approach to the analysis of forensic science in the criminal justice system, and identifying inherent risks in the system, this paper contributes to the emerging body of research on the social processes that impact on the effectiveness of forensic science.

Mortality statistics are an important source of information concerning variations in time and place, identification of risk factors and the evaluation of treatment programs. In this study, a new death certificate was completed “blind” on the basis of hospital records from the last episode of care, across a random sample of 1,376 cases. The results showed that the overlap between the official register’s underlying cause of death and that of a panel was 72 per cent at the three‐digit level. The official underlying cause of death from cerebrovascular diseases (CVD) was 72 cases in this sample, while 93 were deemed to have CVD by a panel. Additionally, of the 1,233 cases originally reported as non‐CVD, the panel deemed non‐CVD to be the true underlying cause in 1,176 cases. The paper concludes that CVD was most often correctly reported as the underlying cause of death in the investigated ages up to 75 years but plain differences were found between specialities and in different hospital size.

Neuroscientific research on addictions has prompted a paradigm shift from a moral to a medical understanding – with substantial implications for legal professionals’ interactions with and decision-making surrounding individuals with addiction. This study complements prior work on US defense attorney’s understandings of addiction by investigating two further perspectives: the potential “next generation” of legal professionals in the USA (criminal justice undergraduates) and legal professionals from another system (Germany). This paper aims to assess their views on the brain disease model of addiction, dominance and relevance of this model, the responsibility of affected persons and preferred sources of information.

Views of 74 US criminal justice undergraduate students and 74 German legal professionals were assessed using Likert scales and open-ended questions in an online survey.

Neuroscientific research findings on addictions and views that addiction is a brain disease were rated as significantly more relevant by American students to their potential future work than by German legal professionals. However, a majority of both samples agreed that addiction is a brain disease and that those affected are responsible for their condition and actions. Sources of information most frequently used by both groups were publications in legal academic journals.

In the USA, information for legal professionals needs to be expanded and integrated into the education of its “next generation,” while in Germany it needs to be developed and promoted. Legal academic journals appear to play a primary role in the transfer of research on addiction into legal practice.

This study complements prior work on US defense attorney’s understandings of addiction by investigating two further perspectives.

This paper aims to give an overview of emerging issues relating to the management of patients in custody during the COVID-19 outbreak in France.

During custody in France, a medical consultation is provided for any patient who requests it. In the Paris area, this consultation is carried out by a practitioner in forensic medicine, based in a general hospital. Usually, most medical consultations for patients in custody take place directly in police stations. With the COVID-19 outbreak, the authors chose to suspend this activity, asking law enforcement to bring patients directly to their hospitals. Patients presenting with severe infections or indicative symptoms of the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection and a comorbidity are tested for COVID-19. Such patients remain hospitalized until results of the test are received. If the result is positive, they are hospitalized for the length of their custody. If sent to prison, they are transferred to a medical facility in detention.

From the onset of the outbreak, the authors observed increased pressure from law enforcement to obtain medical information. According to the French Code of Medical Ethics, no medical information should be disclosed regarding the authors’ patients’ medical situations. The authors are also concerned about sending a potentially infected patient back to a police station, to prison or to his/her home.

This paper provides a snapshot of issues relating to the management of patients in custody during the COVID-19 outbreak in France. Unfortunately, the current situation in France does not permit a wider range of testing for the specified population in this paper.