Constructing Miscarriages of Justice: Misunderstanding Scientific Evidence in High Profile Criminal Appeals

Posted: 29 Feb 2008

See all articles by Gary Edmond

Gary Edmond

University of New South Wales (UNSW) - UNSW Law & Justice

Date Written: March 2002

Abstract

In recent decades a number of criminal convictions have been reversed on appeal, partially on the basis of problems associated with the use of scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution during the trial. These miscarriage of justice cases have received considerable attention from news media, legal commentators, criminologists and in formal public inquiries. Most responses to these cases have been critical of the scientific evidence originally relied upon at trial. Few commentators have been critical of, or even reflective about, the scientific evidence used to acquit. Generally, their analyses have utilized idealized images of science and scientists. In contrast, by importing the concept of methodological symmetry from science studies, this paper aims to identify and explore the conceptual disparity (or asymmetry) between the assessment of scientific evidence used to convict and the scientific evidence used to acquit. In order to illustrate some of the limits to conventional approaches to miscarriages of justice as well as examine the judicial use of scientific evidence this will be undertaken in relation to the successful appeal of the Birmingham Six.

Suggested Citation

Edmond, Gary, Constructing Miscarriages of Justice: Misunderstanding Scientific Evidence in High Profile Criminal Appeals (March 2002). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 53-89, 2002, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=821634

Gary Edmond (Contact Author)

University of New South Wales (UNSW) - UNSW Law & Justice ( email )

Kensington, New South Wales 2052
Australia

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
797
PlumX Metrics