Biases in forensic experts
Open accessAbstract
Forensic evidence plays a critical role in court proceedings and the administration of justice. It is a powerful tool that can help convict the guilty and avoid wrongful conviction of the innocent. Unfortunately, flaws in forensic evidence are increasingly becoming apparent. Assessments of forensic science have too often focused only on the data and the underlying science, as if they exist in isolation, without sufficiently addressing the process by which forensic experts evaluate and interpret the evidence. After all, it is the forensic expert who observes the data and makes interpretations, and therefore forensic evidence is mediated by human and cognitive factors. A U.S. National Research Council examination of forensic science in 2009, followed by a 2016 evaluation by a presidential panel, along with a U.K. inquiry into fingerprinting in 2011 and a 2015 guidance by the U.K. Forensic Science Regulator, have all expressed concerns about biases in forensic expert decision-making. Where does forensic bias come from, and how can we minimize it?
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Cognitive bias impacts not only subjective elements in the justice and legal systems but also objective scientific elements such as forensic fingerprinting and DNA.
“It impacts not only the subjective elements in the justice and legal systems but also the more objective scientific elements, such as forensic fingerprinting and DNA.”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as I. E. Dror, 2018
Such biases can emerge in the most scientific aspects of the justice and legal systems, such as fingerprinting and DNA.
“Such biases can even emerge in the most scientific aspects of justice and legal systems, such as fingerprinting and DNA (I. E. Dror, 2018).”
From Biased and biasing: the hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects (2025) · cites this paper as I. E. Dror, 2018
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 138
- Authors
- Dror, I. E.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dror, Itiel E.
- ORCID
- Dror, Itiel E.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2018-04-20
- Volume
- 360
- Issue
- 6386
- Pages
- 243-243
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2802377601
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2013: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal processes and jurisprudence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- cognitive biases, forensic evidence interpretation, wrongful convictions, forensic science reliability, bias mitigation
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Forensic Medicine, Humans, Neurosciences, Social Justice, Bias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review