Questions About Forensic Science: Response

Science, Vol. 311, p. 608, 2006

Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 11-28

6 Pages Posted: 18 Feb 2011 Last revised: 9 May 2011

Date Written: February 16, 2011

Abstract

The essential message of our review was that forensic individualization/identification science is on course for a “paradigm shift” in which its future will be more scientifically grounded than its past.

Harmon and Budowle take issue with the simple point that traditional forensic science assumes that markings produced by different people and objects are observably different. The notion of uniqueness is widespread in forensic science writing, thinking, and practice. We added the qualifier “discernible” to the uniqueness assumption to indicate that criminalists do not refer to uniqueness in the abstract or as a metaphysical property. They mean that conclusions about object uniqueness are attainable in practice.

Keywords: forensic individualization

JEL Classification: K10, K30

Suggested Citation

Koehler, Jonathan J., Questions About Forensic Science: Response (February 16, 2011). Science, Vol. 311, p. 608, 2006; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 11-28. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1762930

Jonathan J. Koehler (Contact Author)

Northwestern University - Pritzker School of Law ( email )

375 E. Chicago Ave
Chicago, IL 60611
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
63
Abstract Views
724
rank
372,224
PlumX Metrics