TV appearance often lie , specially when it comes to complex theme , like those surroundingforensic science . Anyone who has keep an eye on a crime scene show will likely have the mental picture that criminal offense scenery scientific discipline is unambiguous and that the “ who done it ” is typically made percipient once the right part of grounds is identify . That ’s how it function , right ?
Well , reality is often wily to deal with . Rather than being loose to follow , forensic scientific discipline demo in court to jury can be damn right confusing . For illustration , DNA evidence present by an expert is trace as matching the suspect ’s visibility . smashing , vitrine closed . But then the expert adds that the sample is really partly degrade . Okay , what does that mean for the judgment ? Just as your dubiety are setting in , the expert bring that there is a one - in - a - billion chance that other masses could fit the identified transmitted visibility .
How does all this information affect your finding of fact ? Can you say you now have trust that the deoxyribonucleic acid evidence implicates the suspect ? If not , you ’re not alone .
An excerpt from the Understanding Forensic DNA Analysis booklet.Image credit: Artist- Mark Brown; Funding - Leverhulme Trust and Arts Council England (CC BY-SA)
“ We know that panel phallus in criminal cases sometimes shinny to empathise forensic science techniques and how much forensic grounds can be trust on to settle whether someone is guilty or not,”Dr Andy Ridgway , Senior Lecturer in Science Communication at the University of the West of England , UWE Bristol , andDr Heather Doran , Public Engagement Manager at the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science , University of Dundee , told IFLScience .
“ They hear about the forensic evidence from experts who delineate it in court and that ’s a lot to take in . ”
This is specially truthful if the panel member have lilliputian to no scientific experience , miss anterior knowledge of the types of expertness they are look to habituate to inform their conclusion . This , Ridgway , Doran , and colleagues believe , is a far-flung take .
Courtrooms are serious place and on the face of it , comic strip do n’t seem to be an obvious option . But the comic format has a luck to provide in terms of allowing clear communication of forensic science .
The Evidence Chamber , an interactive experience where player become jury fellow member to scrutinize grounds related to a fabricated criminal casing , was establish at the University of Dundee to explore how non - experts empathize scientific grounds in these legal context .
In the team ’s unexampled study , around 100 Tennessean participated as “ jurors ” in mock trial . The participant took part in an synergistic experience call for dissimilar types of evidence and listened to expert spectator testimony centre on deoxyribonucleic acid analysis and gait analysis ( the study of a person ’s walk normal for identification ) .
The would - be jurors discourse the display case in two phase .
“ First , they received the expert witness testimony . They then discussed it and indicate whether they believed the defendant was shamed or not guilty at that point in time . After that , they were hold memory access to the strip , ” Doran lend in astatement .
This allowed the researchers to see how comics might influence the jurors ’ former discussion and whether they could provide useful additional data . The analytic thinking was carry out by a team from UWE Bristol , include Izzy Baxter , an MS Science Communication student at the time .
“ The funnies were create in a quislingism between the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science and the Comics Studies Creative Research Hub at the University of Dundee , they involved forensic scientists , science communicator and creative person , ” Doran told IFLScience .
“ The cognitive content for the comics came from the judicial primers task which involves the judiciary , the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh . These fuze are plan to assist the judiciary when manage scientific evidence in the courtroom and were written by leading scientist , peer review by scientist and effectual practician , and sanction by the Councils of the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh . ”
to transform the contentedness into a comic , the forensic scientists , scientific discipline communicators , and comic creators , Doran explicate , “ sat down together to make the script and consider how it can be brought to life in a comedian . We really expend a lot of time considering how the graphics could enhance the substance of the schoolbook and how they both could create a narrative . ”
The researchers analyzed the discussion among jurywoman after the skillful testimonial in court and immediately after they study the comics . To assess whether the strip supply an vantage in comprehension , during the experimental phase , one chemical group only received the skilful spectator testimonial while the other had access to both testimonial and the comics .
The analysis demonstrated the effectiveness of strip . Participants who read the cartoon strip hash out the evidence in not bad detail and showed greater confidence in their reasoning and determination . Those who read the cartoon strip were also able to make more explicit references to scientific concepts and present a dependable power to connect forensic scientific discipline with their decisions .
In contrast , those who did not receive the funnies but relied only on the expert witness testimonial showed more misunderstanding of the evidence , with misunderstandings concerning the meaning of chance and margins of error . It seems the comics helped clarify these concepts for jurors .
In increase , jurors who had approach to the comics also adjudge more balanced word with greater participation and interaction among their group .
“ Jury advisement take spot in secret in the UK and research on a jury is not possible , but all juries are made up of member of the public . What we found is that the science comics really do seem to work . Our juror said they understood gait analysis and DNA analysis – the two proficiency the comics were about – better after reading the comics . The illustrations in comics seem to help with that . There ’s also the fact that the forensic science comic strip break data down into chunks which are easier to digest , ” Doran and Ridgway order IFLScience .
“ If you asked someone whether funnies could be used to explicate forensic science in a courtroom , they ’d probably say ' what really ? ' ”
“ There ’s a question about public acceptance . Courtrooms are serious places and on the human face of it , strip do n’t seem to be an obvious choice . But the comic format has a lot to offer up in term of allowing clear communicating of forensic skill . ”
The paper is published in theJournal of Science Communications .
