Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

How to Improve Forensic Science

Contents:

Author Info

  • Roger Koppl

    (Fairleigh Dickinson University)

Abstract

Some institutional structures for inquiry produce better approximations to truth than others. The current institutional structure of police forensics gives each lab a monopoly in the analysis of the police evidence it receives. Forensic workers have inadequate incentives to produce reliable analyses of police evidence. Competition would create such incentives. I outline a system of “competitive self regulation” for police forensics. Each jurisdiction would have several competing forensic labs. Evidence would be divided and sent to one, two, or three separate labs. Chance would determine which labs and how many would receive evidence to analyze. Competitive self regulation improves forensics by creating incentives for error detection and reducing incentives to produce biased analyses.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://128.118.178.162/eps/le/papers/0503/0503001.pdf
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://128.118.178.162/eps/le/papers/0503/0503001.ps.gz
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://128.118.178.162/eps/le/papers/0503/0503001.doc.gz
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Law and Economics with number 0503001.

as in new window
Length: 62 pages
Date of creation: 09 Mar 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwple:0503001

Note: Type of Document - doc; pages: 62
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://128.118.178.162

Related research

Keywords: forensics; forensic science; epistemics; DNA; fingerprints; vouchers; privatization;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
  2. Oliver E. Williamson, 1976. "Franchise Bidding for Natural Monopolies -- in General and with Respect to CATV," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 7(1), pages 73-104, Spring.
  3. McCabe, Kevin & Houser, Daniel & Ryan, Lee & Smith, Vernon & Trouard, Ted, 2001. "A Functional Imaging Study of Cooperation in Two-Person reciprocal Exchange," MPRA Paper 5172, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  4. McQuade, Thomas J & Butos, William N, 2003. " Order-Dependent Knowledge and the Economics of Science," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer, vol. 16(2-3), pages 133-52, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Roger Koppl, 2011. "Against representative agent methodology," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 43-55, March.
  2. Robert Garnett, 2011. "Specialists and citizens all: A reply to Boettke, Koppl, and Holcombe," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 71-76, March.
  3. Roger G. Koppl, 2006. "The Science Game: An Experiment on Reducing errors in Forensic Science and Other Areas," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2006-09, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
  4. Everard Cowan & Roger Koppl, 2011. "An experimental study of blind proficiency tests in forensic science," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 251-271, September.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwple:0503001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.