The Differential Effect of Numeracy and Anecdotes on the Perceived Fallibility of Forensic Science: An Analysis
Shelbey Bissot
Grand Canyon University: BIO-201L
Rakhad Alrawi
November 19, 2017
Abstract An article written by Nicholas Scurich examines how forensic science may not be as flawless as the general public has thought it to be. The research tested two theories for why jurors ignore the flaws of forensic science. The overall results showed that both theories did affect participants’ verdicts (Scurich, 2015, p. 616).
Hypothesis
In “The Differential Effect of Numeracy and Anecdotes on the Perceived Fallibility of Forensic Science” by Nicholas Scurich, there are two hypotheses. The first states that “jurors neglect laboratory
…show more content…
Because of this, it is a common assumption that forensic science is infallible, or incapable of being incorrect. He states that this belief is a myth and shares evidence that forensic science was used in over half of exoneration cases. Currently, it is unknown how often forensic science techniques are incorrect, however studies from the 1980s and 1990s estimate the error rate to be anywhere from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 (Scurich, 2015, p. 617). However, in real life situations the error rates are likely to be higher because this study was performed under the most favorable conditions. Scurich then goes into detail on the ways a false-positive DNA match can occur. These situations include coincidence and laboratory error. Genetic profiles are not extremely unique and it is not impossible for multiple DNA profiles to match. Laboratory error could occur from cross contamination, mislabeling, or misinterpretation (Scurich, 2015, p. 617). How frequently these errors occur is referred to as the laboratory error rate. Research has shown that jurors disregard laboratory error rates when giving the verdict. The purpose of Scurich’s experiment is to find why jurors do not take the laboratory error rates into consideration when making a …show more content…
They were also asked to indicate how likely it was that the defendant committed the crime on a scale of 0-100% (Scurich, 2015, p. 619). Other questions concerning the case were also asked, such as how believable the prosecution’s case is, as well as how trustworthy the laboratory technician is. A reading comprehension question was asked to ensure the participants were paying attention to the details. Only the participants who answered the comprehension question correctly were included in the final data analysis. The participants were told that a sexual assault had occurred and a DNA sample had been extracted from the victim. The main suspect was a man who worked nearby the scene of the crime. He reluctantly gave a blood sample, and was charged with sexual assault. During the trial, a geneticist testified that the suspect’s genetic profile matched 1 in 200,000,000 Hispanics and admitted to a laboratory error rate of 1 in 10 or 1 in 100, depending on the test group (Scurich, 2015, p.