Search

Do all members of a research team ‘expect’ the same deliverables? Do all members of a research team know exactly what other members of the team need from the project? Over the past decade there has been an increase in the number of projects accessing ‘what works’ in policing practice. Many projects are large collaborations between different police departments, justice agencies, and universities. Whether these interagency projects will be successful is based on two fundamentals: did the research produce quality outputs; and more importantly, did the outputs match what people needed and expected. We discuss the importance of understanding what police and other industry partners expect from projects they invest in. In this article, we use a large multidisciplinary research project involving two police forces, three universities, and a forensic science industry body as illustrative of how to measure and plan for differing research direction and outcome expectations. We suggest that to avoid disappointment, police practitioners voice their expectations and make explicit what they need to achieve. As expectations are rarely static, it makes sense to revisit over the life of the project the expectations industry partners have. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

There is limited information available about the impact of chemical trace evidence and it has tended to be anecdotal and mostly pertaining to court outcomes. Very little is known about the use of chemical trace evidence by police investigators or the impact that this evidence form has on criminal investigations. This survey, which was conducted in Victoria, Australia, was aimed at addressing these inadequacies by capturing information from police investigators about: (i) the purpose of using chemical trace and other forensic services; (ii) the expectation of what value forensic services would provide; (iii) the actual impact of forensic evidence in specified cases; and (iv) the general perceptions of forensic science. Police officers who were the lead investigators in a sample of criminal investigations were selected as the subjects for this survey. Each of the sample cases included chemical trace evidence and many of the cases also included other forms of forensic evidence. The police investigators indicated that they use chemical trace evidence with the expectation that it will assist decision-making in their investigations and contribute to building a case for court. Survey responses indicated that chemical trace evidence can impact on multiple stages of a case and that this form of evidence can play a part in guiding police investigators in making decisions about how their cases progress through the criminal justice system. It was found that an important aspect of the impact of chemical trace evidence can involve connections with other forensic and non-forensic evidence in the cases. The provision of preliminary results, prior to the formal written reports that are issued for use in court, enables chemical trace evidence to contribute timely support to investigations. The findings of this survey study contradict prevailing perceptions that the contribution of chemical trace evidence is limited to the presentation of evidence in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk assessments are crucial in aiding criminal justice practitioners because they provide a standardized instrument that aims to identify risk factors that may influence whether an individual will reoffend. This helps to tailor an offender's case-management program to ensure offenders are accessing the appropriate services and interventions and to keep the community safe from future reoffending. The aim of the current study was to investigate the validity and predictive utility of the LS/CMI in a sample of Australian offenders. The results indicate that the LS/CMI has a weak discriminative ability for non-Indigenous males. However, it predicts recidivism in non-Indigenous female offenders at an accuracy level no greater than chance. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to the small female offender sample size. These findings for non-Indigenous offenders are consistent with previous Australian and international research. It also highlights the importance of validating risk assessments for specific populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of this research was to examine the contribution chemical trace evidence makes to criminal justice outcomes. The aim of this work was to place the discipline of chemical trace evidence under the spotlight as there is a dearth of robust research on the impact of this discipline. In this study, data relating to the forensic examinations in a sample of 238 cases which included chemical trace evidence, was collated with data from police investigations and court processes. The findings show that chemical trace evidence is frequently used in combination with other forensic disciplines to support the progress of high-level criminal cases through the justice system. Due to characteristics of how the criminal cases in the dataset were investigated and prosecuted, in combination with the methodology applied in this study, the impact of forensic evidence on the decision to charge suspects could not be analysed quantitatively. However, the impact of forensic evidence on court outcomes in the sample of cases was analysed using methodology that considered the results of the examinations, and the ability of the evidence to provide support for the inclusion or exclusion of persons of interest. The possibility of chemical trace evidence having impact when applied in combination with other forensic disciplines was also examined. It was found that biological examination results was a significant standalone predictor of court outcomes. In contrast, chemical trace examinations did not predict court outcomes when considered as a standalone predictor but examination results of chemical trace evidence in combination with ballistics/tool marks was significantly associated with court outcomes. The findings of this research indicate that, to assess the full impact of any discipline of forensic evidence on the criminal justice system, the analysis must take into account the potential for important synergies that may exist with other forensic and non-forensic evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]