Like many public sector organizations, in the past decades the Dutch judiciary has come to adopt New Public Management (NPM) practices and processes. In this article, we analyze this adoption from a management and organizational control perspective. Using data from a large survey among Dutch judges, we see a “mismatch” between the nature of the NPM-inspired management control systems and the work-related experiences of the judges and inquire into the consequences thereof for judicial work and organization.
LINK
Since late 2020, all district courts and courts of appeal in the Netherlands have internal forensic support in the form of “forensic advisers.” This position was created in 2012 and resulted from the efforts made to expand knowledge of the forensic sciences within the inquisitorial Dutch criminal justice system. Forensic advisers are generalists and support judges in all matters concerning forensic science, for example, ensuring the logically correct interpretation of evidence, assessing the relevant expertise of forensic experts, and helping to avoid statistical fallacies. In this article, we discuss the origins of the position, the activities performed, and both positive and critical remarks about the position in the literature. Extensive attention is paid to the boundaries of the role and of the advice that is offered. We conclude that the forensic adviser has strengthened the forensic science expertise within the Dutch judiciary and we give recommendations for a more robust anchoring of this expertise.
DOCUMENT
Accurate and reliable decision-making in the criminal justice system depends on accurate expert reporting and on the correct interpretation of evidence by the judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers. The present study aims to gain insight into the judiciary's capability to assess the accuracy and reliability of forensic expert reports by first examining the extent to which criminal justice professionals are able to differentiate between an accurate (or sound) expert report and an inaccurate (or unsound) expert report. In an online questionnaire, 133 participants assessed both a sound and an unsound expert report. The findings show that, on average, participants were unable to significantly distinguish between sound and unsound forensic expert reports. Second, the study explored the influence of institutional authority on the evaluation of forensic expert reports. Reports that were not recognized as flawed—particularly those originating from well-known and reputable institutions—were subjected to less critical examination, increasing the risk of evaluation errors. These results suggest that the perceived institutional authority influences the assessment of forensic evidence. The study highlights the need for tools to support criminal justice professionals in evaluating forensic evidence, particularly when experts are unregistered. Recommendations include adhering to established quality standards, consulting counter-expert evaluations, improving courtroom communication, and enhancing forensic knowledge through training. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of critical evidence evaluation to reduce the risk of misinterpretation and wrongful convictions in the judicial process.
DOCUMENT
