ISSN:0045-0618    

DOI:10.1080/00450619409411297

出版商:Taylor & Francis Group    

年代:1994

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0045-0618    

DOI:10.1080/00450619409411298

出版商:Taylor & Francis Group    

年代:1994

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

Methods designed to obviate wrongful conviction in the pre-scientific era are ill-adapted to the assessment of complex scientific evidence in courts of the late 20th century. I argue that scientists and lawyers should collaborate to ensure that science is used to better advantage than the old methods allow. They should act to equip juries to assess expert evidence. All that a non-technical jury requires for assessing an expert's argument is a list of the standard procedures of the scientist's profession, put in the same logical sequence as the expert followed in his testing and reasoning. Respected bodies such as the Australian Academy of Science might assist the courts to obtain professional standards on which the courts could rely in assessing forensic science evidence.

ISSN:0045-0618    

DOI:10.1080/00450619409411299

出版商:Taylor & Francis Group    

年代:1994

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0045-0618    

DOI:10.1080/00450619409411300

出版商:Taylor & Francis Group    

年代:1994

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0045-0618    

DOI:10.1080/00450619409411301

出版商:Taylor & Francis Group    

年代:1994

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0045-0618    

DOI:10.1080/00450619409411302

出版商:Taylor & Francis Group    

年代:1994

数据来源: Taylor

ISSN:0045-0618    

DOI:10.1080/00450619409411303

出版商:Taylor & Francis Group    

年代:1994

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

Edited by John Gunn and Pamela J. Taylor. Butterworth Heinemann. Oxford, 1993; 1151 pp.; recommended retail price $350; ISBN 0 7506 0349 6.

ISSN:0045-0618    

DOI:10.1080/00450619409411304

出版商:Taylor & Francis Group    

年代:1994

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

This is a scanned image of the original Editorial Board page(s) for this issue.

ISSN:0045-0618    

DOI:10.1080/00450619409411296

出版商:Taylor & Francis Group    

年代:1994

数据来源: Taylor