{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015639374425023, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.111111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Paradigms of forensic science and legal process: a critical diagnosis

This article reconsiders the relationship between criminal adjudication and forensic expertise in the light of ‘new paradigms' of forensic practice and recent law reform. It briefly summarizes conventional wisdom on the typical shortcomings of forensic science and other expert evidence, as a springboard for a more searching critical diagnosis of longstanding maladies. The fundamentally jurisdictional nature of law is emphasized, and some implications for expert testimony noted. English law's traditionally adversarial model of criminal procedure is then reassessed, taking account of a proper understanding of its normative structure and modern development, and drawing on comparative legal research and theorizing to obtain a more rounded second opinion. In conclusion, some avenues for intelligent prescription are canvassed, highlighting the importance of promoting and facilitating effective communication between experts, lawyers and courts, and prioritizing modest practical remedies over radical surgery.