The Science of Bias

-->

I have been following Dr. Dror since the airing of “The Real CSI” on Frontline back in April 2012. Since then he has published many additional articles relating to the subject of Cognitive Bias and how it plays in the handling of forensic evidence and those that are “experts” in those fields.

In a recent article in the Irish Times, “Why forensic evidence may not be as certain as we’d like to think it is”, Dr. Dror writes more about how bias can play a role in the field of forensic testing and analysis and how it can affect expert testimony in the courts. It certainly does raise the question to how valid or accurate expert analysis and testimony truly is.

A concern that I have had and have corresponded with Dr. Dror about, is the natural bias or prejudice that exists with us all, especially when we are called to serve as jurors, the evaluators’ of the facts and evidence during criminal trials. It is my belief that a person’s natural prejudice, based upon their own experiences and beliefs, become a crucial factor in their ability to process without prejudice.

It’s quite compelling when a case is well weighted with strong physical evidence linking a person to a crime. Where, beyond a reasonable doubt, is easily reached and determined. But it seems, more often than not, many cases present little to no physical or forensic evidence and the prosecutor’s theory of the facts or presumed circumstances becomes the only so-called evidence available for jurors to decide from.

Just as studies have revealed the many flaws that trained and professional scientists and other experts have made due to cognitive bias, one can only imagine what bias the untrained mind of a juror can play in the decision process.

The opening statements by both the prosecution and the defense lay out the basis of their case. The defense, of course, relies greatly upon the presumption of innocence by bolstering the fact that the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, many a prosecution case has been won without any physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime, solely relying on a convincing theory of what took place creating the probability that the defendant most likely committed the crime.

My concern of course, is that a person’s natural prejudice or bias convinces them to believe the theory and to ignore their reasonable doubt. Jurors are always asked if they can hear the evidence before them and to evaluate it without personal opinion or prejudice; but can they really be trusted to act appropriately? It’s just too easy to wear our biases secretly and silently, beyond detection. So just how do we protect the innocent from such fallible human analysis?

It’s really something to consider and think about. Do you think that you can set aside your experiences and beliefs, listen objectively to both sides speak to the evidence or the lack thereof, and then possibly decide without letting your bias influencing you? It’s my belief that pressure and the emotional weight of one’s beliefs usually prevails, leaving them with an it’s better to be safe than sorry decision when the science is clear cut and beyond one’s biased doubt.