Page - 169 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

The targets of the reforms are criminal cases, which the Ministry of Justice categorises as ‘low- level, straightforward and uncontested…where a quick response is appropriate’.1 Such cases are to be dealt with ‘promptly and efficiently’ and, in order to better dispense ‘swift justice’, the CJS Efficiency program seeks to ‘transform criminal justice from a fragmented, paper-based system to a seamless, digital service.’2 In pursuance of these objectives, the program embraces technological innovations, such as the introduction of digital case files, increased use of video technology in proceedings, and the harnessing of social media to communicate with the general public. However, the use of these non-expert reports, which are frequently compiled by untrained police administrators, has led to serious concerns. Interviews with DNA profiling experts expressed just such concerns, focussing on the loss of expert evaluation and interpretation within the SFR process, and the concomitant loss of contextual information. The responses below, taken from semi-structured interviews with a cohort of DNA profiling experts in 2015-16, were typical: ‘…there’s a very strong cohort of individual scientists usually, who feel that [SFRs] are misleading because (a) they don’t allow a scientist to talk about the context because they’re very formulaic and (b) they don’t provide any sort of context to the findings.’ (DR) ‘With SFRs they’ve taken the expert out of the process. Previously, the expert had an overview. Now, its only when the defence gets it that we have the necessary overview.’ (FE) ‘They are relying on the reputation of DNA but with none of the science underpinning it.’ (DI) ‘Because there is not technical note and so little information, it’s very hard to challenge. A lawyer wouldn’t know what to challenge and a defendant couldn’t get the funds to challenge it.’ (MB) Subsisting theories do not account for the instrumental use of non-expert forms of forensic reporting. For example, Edmond3 has posited that rational representations of law and science do not merely serve the originating discipline - they also serve to structure the interdisciplinary co- production of forensic-scientific claims. Such ideal cross-representations may be unproblematic when applied within the context of a rigorous legal interrogation of an exhaustive and contextual expert evaluation, which conforms to agreed scientific standards. However, it is debatable to what degree these representations continue to apply when law, and science, departs from these exhaustive standards, particularly through innovative forms of reporting which are characterised by power asymmetries, and the instrumental uses of forensic scientific knowledge claims? Indeed, any perceived similarities may be limited in scope, superficial, and may mask differences in conceptual frameworks and usages. A more detailed discussion of the incommensurable normative bases of law and science will take place within the theoretical 1 Ibid. at p.5 2 Ibid. at p.43 3 Edmond, G (2001); The Law Set ; The legal-scientific production of medical propriety Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(2), 191-226; see also Mercer, Op. Cit. at note 12 ; Lynch, et. al. at p.45; Lawless, C (2016) Forensic Science: A Sociological introduction (Routledge: New York) at page 3; 169