Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:09:59.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organization economics explains many forensic science errors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2010

ROGER KOPPL
ROGER KOPPL*
Affiliation:
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Madison, NJ, United States
*
*Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Judge Posner (2010) has identified an important lacuna in law and economics, namely a tendency to ignore organization theory. I will apply the tools of organization theory to an area almost completely neglected in law and economics, forensic science. Posner points us to tools we should make use of; I am pointing to an application we have neglected. Forensic science today is characterized by a twofold monopoly. First, evidence is typically examined by one crime lab only. Second, that same lab will normally be the only one to offer an interpretation of the results of the examination it performs. Crime labs today are typically organized under law enforcement agencies, which may create conscious and unconscious biases in favor of police and prosecution. These organizational features of forensic science today encourage errors and wrongful convictions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 71 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baicker, K. and Jacobson, M. (2007), ‘Finders keepers: forfeiture laws, policing incentives, and local budgets’, Journal of Public Economics, 91 (11): 2113–2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavan, Colin (2001), Fingerprints: The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science, New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
Benson, B. and Rasmussen, D. (1995), ‘Predatory public finance and the origins of the war on drugs’, The Independent Review, 1: 163–195.Google Scholar
Benson, B., Rasmussen, D., and Sollars, D. (1995), ‘Police bureaucracies, their incentives, and the war on drugs’, Public Choice, 83: 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coen, Jeff and Mills, Steve (2008), ‘Feds catch up with Burge Notorious ex-Chicago commander charged with lying about torture’, Chicago Tribune, 22 October 2008, downloaded 16 April 2009 from http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/oct/22/local/chi-burge-22-oct22.Google Scholar
Cole, Simon (2005), ‘More than zero: accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95 (3): 985–1078.Google Scholar
Cole, Simon (2007), ‘Where the rubber meets the road: thinking about expert evidence as expert testimony’, Villanova Law Review, 52: 803–842.Google Scholar
CPLEX (2007), Complete Latent Print Examination Message Board’, http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=616, downloaded 13 November 2007.Google Scholar
Dewatripont, Mathias, Jewitt, Ian, and Tirole, Jean (2000), ‘Multitask agency problems: focus and task clustering’, European Economic Review, 44: 869–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drizin, Steen A. and Leo, Richard A. (2004), ‘The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world’, North Carolina Law Review, 82: 891–1004.Google Scholar
Dror, Itiel E. and Charlton, David (2006), ‘Why experts make errors’, Journal of Forensic Identification, 56 (4): 600–616.Google Scholar
Dror, Itiel, Charlton, David, and Péron, Ailso E. (2006), ‘Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications’, Forensic Science International, 156: 74–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrett, Brandon and Neufeld, Peter J. (2009), ‘Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions’, Virginia Law Review, 95 (1): 1–97.Google Scholar
Gestring, Brian (2009), ‘The dawn of the “Forensic Science Provocateur”’, CAC News, 1st quarter: 25–28.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Paul C. (1997), ‘The abuse of evidence in criminal cases: the need for independent crime laboratories’, Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 4: 439–478.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Paul C. (2004), ‘Ake v. Oklahoma: the right to expert assistance in a post-Daubert, post-DNA world’, Cornell Law Review, 89: 1305–1419.Google Scholar
Greene, Susan and Moffiet, Miles (2007), ‘Bad faith difficult to prove’, The Denver Post, 22 July 2007, downloaded 28 January 2009 from http://www.denverpost.com/evidence/ci_6429277.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, Bengt and Milgrom, Paul (1991), ‘Multitask principal-agent analyses: incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7(special issue): 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppl, Roger (2005a), ‘How to improve forensic science’, European Journal of Law and Economics, 20 (3): 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppl, Roger (2005b), ‘Epistemic systems’, Episteme: Journal of Social Epistemology, 2 (2): 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppl, Roger (2010), ‘Romancing forensics: legal failure in forensic science administration’, in Lopez, Edward (ed.), The Pursuit of Justice: Law and Economics of Legal System, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Krane, Dan and ten others (2008), ‘Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation’, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53 (4): 1006–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreeger, L. (2002), ‘Preparing for defense experts’, Silent Witness (newsletter of the National District Attorneys Association), 7 (2), downloaded 16 April from http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/silent_witness_volume_7_number_2_2002.html.Google Scholar
Makowsky, M. and Stratmann, T. (2007), ‘Political economy at any speed: what determines traffic citations?, SSRN Manuscript, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_iD964958_code518367.pdf?abstractid=961967&mirid=1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NAS, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community (2009), Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
Niskanen, W. (1971), Bureaucracy and Representative Government, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
Novak, Kenneth and Engel, Robin S. (2005), ‘Disentangling the influence of suspects’ demeanor and mental disorder on arrest’, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management, 28 (5): 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Oversight and Review Division (2006), ‘A review of the FBI's handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case: unclassified and redacted’, US Department of Justice, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0601/final.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) (2008), ‘Review of the Office of Justice Programs’, Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. (2010), ‘From the new institutional economics to organization economics: with applications to corporate governance, government agencies, and legal institutions’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 6 (1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risinger, Michael, Saks, Michael J., Thompson, William C., and Rosenthal, Robert (2002), ‘The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion’, California Law Review, 90 (1): 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Joel and Winton, Richard (2008), ‘LAPD finds faulty fingerprint work’, Los Angeles Times, 17 October 2008.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael and Koehler, Jonathon J. (2005), ‘The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science’, Science, 309: 892–895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, William C. (2009), ‘Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation’, Law, Probability and Risk, 8 (3): 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, William C. and Cole, Simon A. (2007), ‘Psychological aspects of forensic identification evidence’, in Costanzo, Mark, Krauss, Daniel, and Pezdek, Kathy (eds.), Expert Psychological Testimony for the Courts, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 31–68.Google Scholar
Thompson, William C. and Dioso-Villa, Rachel (2008), ‘Turning a blind eye to misleading scientific testimony: failure of procedural safeguards in a capital case’, Albany Journal of Science and Technology, 18: 151–304.Google Scholar
Wallberg, Matthew (2009), ‘Former Cook County judge named special prosecutor in murder cases’, Mark, 8 April 2009, downloaded 16 April 2009 from www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-burge-ruling-08-apr08,0,374954.story.Google Scholar
Wells, Jeffrey D (2009), ‘Commentary on: D. E. Krane, S. Ford, J. R. Gilder, K. Inman, A. Jamieson, R. Koppl, I. L. Kornfield, D. M. Risinger, N. Rudin, M. S. Taylor, and W. C. Thompson, ‘Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation’, Journal of Forensic Science, 53 (4) (2008): 1006–7, in Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(2): 500.Google Scholar
Whitman, Glen and Koppl, Roger (2010), ‘Rational bias in forensic science’, Law, Probability, and Risk, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Joy (2007), ‘Administrative Review’, PC-07–0018, Seminole County Sheriff's Office, 4 June 2007.Google Scholar