Forensic reports use various types of conclusions, such as a categorical (CAT) conclusion or a likelihood ratio (LR). In order to correctly assess the evidence, users of forensic reports need to understand the conclusion and its evidential strength. The aim of this paper is to study the interpretation of the evidential strength of forensic conclusions by criminal justice professionals. In an online questionnaire 269 professionals assessed 768 reports on fingerprint examination and answered questions that measured self-proclaimed and actual understanding of the reports and conclusions. The reports entailed CAT, verbal LR and numerical LR conclusions with low or high evidential strength and were assessed by crime scene investigators, police detectives, public prosecutors, criminal lawyers, and judges. The results show that about a quarter of all questions measuring actual understanding of the reports were answered incorrectly. The CAT conclusion was best understood for the weak conclusions, the three strong conclusions were all assessed similarly. The weak CAT conclusion correctly emphasizes the uncertainty of any conclusion type used. However, most participants underestimated the strength of this weak CAT conclusion compared to the other weak conclusion types. Looking at the self-proclaimed understanding of all professionals, they in general overestimated their actual understanding of all conclusion types.
DOCUMENT
Are professionals better at assessing the evidential strength of different types of forensic conclusions compared to students? In an online questionnaire 96 crime investigation and law students, and 269 crime investigation and legal professionals assessed three fingerprint examination reports. All reports were similar, except for the conclusion part which was stated in a categorical (CAT), verbal likelihood ratio (VLR) or numerical likelihood ratio (NLR) conclusion with high or low evidential strength. The results showed no significant difference between the groups of students and professionals in their assessment of the conclusions. They all overestimated the strength of the strong CAT conclusion compared to the other conclusion types and underestimated the strength of the weak CAT conclusion. Their background (legal vs. crime investigation) did have a significant effect on their understanding. Whereas the legal professionals performed better compared to the crime investigators, the legal students performed worse compared to crime investigation students.
DOCUMENT
"Background: Victimization is highly prevalent in individuals with mild intellectual disability (MID) or borderline intellectual functioning (BIF) and is an important risk factor for mental health problems and violent behavior. Not much is known, however, about victimization history in women with MID-BIF admitted to forensic mental health care. Aims: The aim of this multicenter study is to gain insight into victimization histories and mental health problems of female forensic psychiatric patients with MID-BIF. Methods: File data were analyzed of 126 women with MID-BIF who have been admitted to one of five Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals between 1990 and 2014 and compared to data of 76 female patients with average or above intellectual functioning and to a matched sample of 31 male patients with MID-BIF. Results: All forensic paients had high rates of victimization, but women with MID-BIF showed an even higher prevalence of victimization during both childhood and adulthood and more complex psychopathology compared to female patients without MID-BIF. Compared to male forensic patients with MID-BIF, women with MID-BIF were more often victim of sexual abuse during childhood. During adulthood, the victimization rate in these women was more than three times higher than in men. Conclusions: Victimization is a salient factor in female forensic patients with MID-BIF and more gender-responsive trauma-focused treatment is needed."
DOCUMENT
