Page 6 of 6
Thoughts
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:43 pm
by Shane Turnidge
This thread did indeed evolve into something worth participating in.
The only issue that I feel was left untouched, is that experience was not considered in the objective - subjective equation.
I've heard it said at the local Police College that instructors feel they can teach virtually anything once a curriculum has been developed, yet it remains to be seen that a successful candidate is able to assume their role and play at an advanced level once they've received their training.
Truth is, academics alone will not produce an examiner with enough minerals to function as a competent independent LPE. Experience must be a factor in the knowledge/skills/ability of any LPE. And we probably also need to consider the nature of the practitioners experience along with all the other considerations alluded to in this thread before we can hope to validate and reflect on the objective vs. subjective debate of any given individual.
Shane
Re: Thoughts
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:44 am
by L.J.Steele
Shane Turnidge wrote:
The only issue that I feel was left untouched, is that experience was not considered in the objective - subjective equation.
There may be some problems because we are using objective/subjective in several different ways.
On one level, we are using it to consider the difference between information (the latent print and exemplar, FREX) and interpretations of it (when is it a match, what features are important to the ID, etc.)
On another level, were are using it to consider the difference between what a hypothetical reasonable examiner considering only the latent and examplar themselves might conclude (objective) and what a particular examiner who may have outside information about the case (recognize the name and criminal record of the examplar's source; have been told that the exemplar's source confessed, or was matched by DNA, etc; or be pressured due to the nature of the case to make a match) (subjective).
In the first sense, training and experience are important issues. An experienced examiner will likely be able evaluate a print faster and more accurately than a trainee. An experienced examiner may be able to work with more difficult prints than a trainee, with a risk of exceeding his or her skill without realizing it.
In the second sense, the psychology folks would tell you that all the training and experience in the world can't prevent subconscious biases from causing insidious mistakes. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the subconscious. Once can certainly become more aware of the risks, and use procedural precautions and double-blind verificatoins to reduce the risk of a resulting mis-ID, but sadly, the human brain is not as rational as one likes to think.
When I'm talking about subjectivity, I'm mostly talking about the second sense -- a recognition that (1) there is a personal element to an identification. It is not a simple as "is the light red or green?" or solving a math problem. The source data itself can be ambiguous (more like trying to solve a math problem after decyphering its author's blurry, crabbed handwriting and making a best-guess at some of the intergers and operators). And recognizing (2) that there are known factors that will increase the risk of error (per the Stacey report things like internal/external pressures in high-profile cases, tunnel vision, department cuture, and expectations based on outside information (confirmation bias)) which need to be considered when evaluating an ID for court purposes.
Makes me smile
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:10 pm
by g.
Lisa,
That's a GREAT point. If I understand you correctly, you saw two definitions of subjectivity (one is an experience, ability, based-interpretive opinion, the other, a conclusion which can be/is influenced by confounding external factors/biases.
I am really glad YOU made that post, (and you know I love and respect ya, so please don't take this the wrong way), but it's my experience that other attorneys have that same opinion/definition of subjectivity and EXACTLY why it became such a dirty word.
Our profession has done everything we can to get away from the word "subjective" because whenever an attorney is bringing it up, they mean "you were influenced by bias". So we have gotten ourselves into quite a pickle of "wordplay" dancing around the issue of subjectivity and doing everything we can to get that word out of ACE-V....when I think we would all have to agree, by that first definition, we all "interpret" the data given based on experience, training, personality, etc and that can and often is a good thing. Of course, the very strength of it, is its weakness, in that it is open to bias, as you aptly point out.
So that raises a good question. If attorneys seem to believe that is the def'n of subjectivity, a "a bias prone conclusion", doesn't it make sense that we have attempted to minimize the role of "subjectivity" in our examinations/testimony? As a self-preservation mechanism almost ...
Very interesting. Thank-you for raising that point. Personally I go with the former definition and accept that the latter is a potential consequence (one of many potential consequences) of that definition.
Cheers all,
g.
Glenn Langenburg
Re: Makes me smile
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:33 am
by Guest
g. wrote:I am really glad YOU made that post, (and you know I love and respect ya, so please don't take this the wrong way), but it's my experience that other attorneys have that same opinion/definition of subjectivity and EXACTLY why it became such a dirty word.
Attorneys and judges get this from the legal use of the term. "Objectively reasonable" is a term of legal art, meaning what a hypothetical reasonable person, placed in the subject's shoes would perceive. "Subjective" tests have to do with what the subject testifies that he or she actually saw or felt.
I just argued a case dealing with an armed robbery, the gist of which was whether the victim's personal belief that the robbers had a firearm (which was not displayed, nor was there any unambiguous threat or guesture) was sufficient to support a robbery with a firearm charge, vs. some other level of robbery. Under CT law, the statute is objective -- what does the jury think a reasonable person would have concluded from the threats and actions; not subjective -- what did the victim conclude.
Self-defense is another area where we commonly get into objective/subjective tests. The common rule is that the defendant's perception of the need for deadly force must be objectively and subjectively reasonable -- not only must he or she perceive an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, but a reasonable person in the same place must be deemed to have the same perception.
So when the attorney is using these words, he or she probably means it in the sense of the difference between the hypothetical reasonable examiner and the specific examiner in the case. The attorney wants to know about the objective facts and the subjective interpretation of the facts. This does not necessarily mean "bais" was involved in a way that connotes an error, although the defense attorney will want to explore the possibliity of error.
To go back above, the victim in the robbery case wasn't biased, per se. But she was in the middle of a street robbery by two guys and may have made an unreasonable assumption about whether the guys had a firearm or were threatening to beat her up. Defendants in self-defense cases, again caught up in very stressful circumstances, often find themselves deemed to have made an objectively unrealistic assessment of the threat posed by the complainant.
Very interesting. Thank-you for raising that point. Personally I go with the former definition and accept that the latter is a potential consequence (one of many potential consequences) of that definition.
This is likely a reason to talk with your local prosecutors so that they can use direct or re-direct to give you a chance to explain what you mean by "subjective" as opposed to the legal term of art. Jurors at trial may have a understandingcloser to the first definition than a judge ruling on a suppressoin motion, who will first think of the legal term.
Board login woes
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:37 am
by L.J.Steele
The last "guest" post about legal definitions of objective/subjective is mine -- board accepted my log-in, but apparently didn't keep the cookie. <Sigh>
Thanks!
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:54 am
by g.
Lisa,
Thank-you. That post was very enlightening. It now really makes sense why there is this misunderstanding or at least difference of definition. Yet again, scientists and attorneys are speaking two different languages. Very helpful. That will help me tweak my testimony a bit too to aid juries that may have been instructed by the court what "subjective and objective" were...
Have a great day!
g.
Re: Fingerprint Dogma Final Exam
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:46 am
by Guest
Dogma (formerly Guest) wrote:Most of us practitioners in fingerprint science are aware of the attacks on our practices and the underlying science and methodology dealing with the identification of fingerprints. (Sorry, individualization just has too many syllables and offends the poet in me.) So, here was my idea: articulate the perceived deficiencies and post them on the internet. Not just anywhere, mind you, but in a place where all the greatest minds of fingerprint science meet to confer, debate and discuss the issues affecting the discipline. I would then collect all the great ideas and compile them into a definitive defense of fingerprint science. Last week, the questions were posed in three installments accounting for over 1,000 views by forum visitors. Here are the results:
1. Who was it that first suggested this principle of biological uniqueness?
The survey says: “Many theories have been applied in explanation of this law in relation to friction ridge skin. Alfred Hale's Theory of Differential Growth is the one referred to above, by Shaheen. Both Chaos and Fractal theories can be applied to biological growth throughout nature, not just to friction ridge skin. I admit that we do need to research more fully how these various theories do explain the Law of Uniqueness, but just as I believe that the Law of Gravity holds without a supporting theory, so I believe the Law of Uniqueness holds true.” (Thank you, Mr. Fairhurst)
2. At what level was uniqueness first observed?
The survey says: ?????
3. Where was this principle/theory first published?
The survey says: ?????
4. What experimentation was conducted to verify this observation?
The survey says: ?????
5. Who first applied this principle to fingerprint ridge detail?
The survey says: ?????
6. How do we define sufficient? The implication is to an amount. How much? How do I know when I have enough to proceed?
The survey says: ?????
7. How do we define quantity? Again the implication is to an amount. How much? What value can I assign to what I observe?
The survey says: ?????
8. How do we define quality? If we are to judge the quality of a print, what are the criteria? What are the differing levels of Quality? Choice? Prime? Grade A? At the very least, there is a quality level which is unacceptable. What is it? Can it be described in words?
The survey says: ?????
So, I’ll grant partial credit for question 1. Questions 2 through 8 went unanswered so no credit for those. The fingerprint profession scores a remarkable 6.25% on their final exam. Houston, we have a problem!
#2 Level 2 or individual characteristics.
#3 & #5 The assumption of absolute uniqueness on the part of all tangible objects is a doctrine that has pervaded the interpretation of physical evidence. The doctrine generally takes one of two forms. The first is the metaphysical argument advanced by a number of classical philosophers (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno, and Plato), and further developed in the 17th century by Leibniz. His insight was that; all natural objects could be differentiated if examined in sufficient detail.
The second form of the uniqueness argument is the one invoked for forensic science purposes. This form of argument is frequently voiced as "Nature never repeats itself", and is attributed to the Belgian statistician Quetelet. He recognized the value of randomness with his observation "Nature exhibits an infinite variety of forms." The difference between objects is information about the subjects uniqeness. This is called The Principle Of Individualization.
In 1788 the German doctor and anatomist J.C.A. Mayer publushed an atlas of anatomical illustrations. Each plate or illustration was accompanied by a brief explanation. The plate of fingerprint drawings was accompanied by the first clear enunciation of the basic fingerprint tenet, which read:
"Although the arrangements of skin ridges is never duplicated in two persons..."
#4 Observation. By comparing different examples of the same species.
#6 I will answer with a question. As a person approches, at what point do you finally determine that it is your father or mother a close friend or a complete stranger? This is where cognition and recognition come into play.
#7 & #8 These are going to be different for each individual.