Expert perception and individual judgment constitute critical factors in forensic pattern recognition. To investigate this area of research expertise, the critics should be sufficiently knowledgeable with the discipline to provide a constructive paradigm of arguments on the subject matter. This assignment provides criticism of Dror’s and Cole’s (2010) study on “blind” justice, supporting the claim made by the authors through the prism of contemporary academic literature.
Dror and Cole’s credentials as academic scholars in the field allow them to solidify meaningful criticism. Both authors appeared in multiple peer-reviewed publications, uncovering novel approaches to forensic science. The findings from their collaboration suggested that forensic experts are required to evaluate whether two patterns are similar enough to have the same origin (Dror & Cole, 2010).
The initial hypothesis, highlighting the role of bias, individual context, and perception in judgment has been later supported by other researchers. For instance, Koehler, Schweitzer, Saks, and Mcquiston (2016) underlined that one of the leading causes of erroneous convictions in the court is forensic science bias, also known as “blind” testimony. The researchers also emphasized that it is essential to understand the critics’ pre-existing beliefs about the situation to better evaluate their evidence.
The aforementioned factor leads to the assessment of the constructiveness of the criticism given. Dror and Cole (2010) provide a number of perspectives in their research, focusing on a multitude of case studies. Such an approach demonstrates the absence of merely fault findings for it is supported by empirical evidence under various angles. As suggested by Ribeiro, Tangen, and Blake (2019), forensic experts have to balance between the empirical manifestation of the accuracy of their methods, the universality of the law, historical precedence, and one’s moral beliefs to provide bias-free, constructive feedback. Since the original article is supported by later contemporary research, the content, methods, and conclusions of the study shall be labeled as satisfactory.
References
Dror, I. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 161-167. Web.
Koehler, J., Schweitzer, N., Saks, M., & Mcquiston, D. (2016). Science, technology, or the expert witness: What influences jurors’ judgments about forensic science testimony? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22. Web.
Ribeiro, G., Tangen, J. M., & Blake, M. (2019). Beliefs about error rates and human judgment in forensic science. Forensic Science International, 297, 138-147. Web.