지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article discusses evidential and procedural measures against DNA errors in criminal investigation and trials.
It has been believed that a Random-match Probability(RMP) of DNA profile is so astronomical that a coincidental match in population is unlikely. RMP of DNA evidence, however, has been mistakenly considered as the probability of identifying criminals. In contrast, the RMP is merely frequency showing that two randomly selected persons might match in their DNA STRs, rather than a suspect likely being an offender.
Therefore, with Bayes' Theorem, Posterior Odds = Likelihood Ratio(LR,1/RMP)× Prior Odds. Thus, if we don't know Prior Odds, we cannot calculate Posterior Odds. As a result, if there is only LR evidence against suspects, they should not be convicted solely based on DNA profile random-match rate. Prior Odds, however, can be estimated with the size of population, even without further evidence. For e×ample, if a suspect lives in a community of 40,000 population, we can assume that the likelihood of the suspect being a culprit is 1/40,000. Then we can multiply 1/40,000 with LR. In this case, Posterior Odds(the likelihood that the suspect is an offender) can be calculated. There are some caveats,however. Other issues that raise the error rate of DNA evidence must be dealt with, such as chain of custody and pre-trial discovery.
Chain of custody of DNA evidence must be observed and proved from the stage of DNA evidence gathering to a DNA e×amination process and e×pert testimony at trial. In addition, defendants must be given access to all the case files and data made at a laboratory and given an opportunity to rebut the reliability of test results prior to trials. Furthermore, indigent defendants must be assisted by a DNA e×pert funded by a government.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (24)
참고문헌 신청
이성기 / 2011 / 증거물 보관의 연속성(Chain of Custody) 원칙과 증거법적 함의 / 경찰학연구 11(3):55~84
이응혁 / 2011 / 형사재판상 과학적 증거의 기준과 국내 발전방향 -최근 미국에서의 과학적 증거의 개혁논의를 중심으로 / 형사정책 23(1):301~336
한면수 / 2005 / 유전자감식을 위한 15 STR(Identifier)마커의 집단유전학적분석 / 한국법과학회지 6(4)
Alex Stein / 2005 / Foundations of Evidence Law 41
Andrea Roth / 2010 / Safety in Numbers? Deciding When DNA Alone is Enough to Convict / N. Y. U. L. Rev 85:1130~1175
이응혁 / 2011 / 형사재판상 과학적 증거의 기준과 국내 발전방향 -최근 미국에서의 과학적 증거의 개혁논의를 중심으로 / 형사정책 23(1):301~336
한면수 / 2005 / 유전자감식을 위한 15 STR(Identifier)마커의 집단유전학적분석 / 한국법과학회지 6(4)
Alex Stein / 2005 / Foundations of Evidence Law 41
Andrea Roth / 2010 / Safety in Numbers? Deciding When DNA Alone is Enough to Convict / N. Y. U. L. Rev 85:1130~1175
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0