How the Judges rend...
 
Notifications
Clear all

How the Judges render a judgement?

6 Posts
5 Users
0 Likes
413 Views
(@gorvq7222)
Posts: 229
Reputable Member
Topic starter
 

Should the Judges participate in forensic training so they could be "certified" to hear such cases related to digital forensics?

Forensic guys work so hard as to restore the truth, and finally we got the truth in the Lab. Some day forensic guys being an expert witness sitting in the Court answering questions and making explanations. Everything is OK, only one thing strange is that I find the Judges not familiar with computers or IT or forensics… It's hard to believe,right?

We always say "Your Honor" to the Judges, of course they are experienced experts in laws and regulations. But what if they know few about IT or hardware/software, networking,etc , how do they understand what we talk about in the Court?

It a serious topic, and I'm not kidding. It looks like that the Judges just want both side to come up with a conclusion, so they could render a judgment according to that "conclusion". I worry about Victims, maybe Suspect will be released not guilty, and I also worry about Suspect, maybe he/she is innocent…If the Judges are mislead by Lawyers, tragedy may happen…

If the Judges can not understand what we talk about, absolutely they could not discuss those details like files ystem, artifacts, how and why…Perhaps some will say the Judges could render a judgment based on their experience and the law of nature. But in my opinion that is not enough…actually it's dangerous. If you don't understand what's going on very detail, you may make mistakes.

 
Posted : 11/10/2015 1:51 pm
jaclaz
(@jaclaz)
Posts: 5133
Illustrious Member
 

Sure ) , and they should also be M.D.'s for hearing cases where injuries or death is involved, veterinaries for hearing cases where violence on animals is discussed and structural engineers in cases involving bridge and building collapses, race drivers and mechanical engineers for road accidents, etc.
The career of a judge should begin only when, after having finished Law school, they will choose and follow at least two other Ph.D.'s and have at least a few years of experience in the field on both chosen matters, besides in Law, around 55 or so.

jaclaz

 
Posted : 11/10/2015 5:54 pm
(@gorvq7222)
Posts: 229
Reputable Member
Topic starter
 

Sorry, no disrespect to the Judges, do they really understand those details we talk about? I don't think so. Under these circumstances how could they hear the case related to digital forensics, and render the judgment?

What I am trying to say is Should we have Forensic Judges so that they could handle cases related to forensics? For example, we have IT Professional Police, Traffic Police and so on. This could guarantee the judgment quality, and safeguard the bilateral rights and interests.

 
Posted : 12/10/2015 6:59 am
(@twjolson)
Posts: 417
Honorable Member
 

Sorry, no disrespect to the Judges, do they really understand those details we talk about? I don't think so.

If they don't understand, who is to blame - the Judge or the expert brought in to teach the Judge (and Jury) about the expert's field of expertise?

You are asking a Judge (a typically very old-fashioned profession, when it comes to technology) to be an expert in all areas of the law AND all areas of digital forensics. We can't even be experts in all areas of digital forensics…

 
Posted : 12/10/2015 8:02 am
(@unicron)
Posts: 36
Eminent Member
 

Should the Judges participate in forensic training so they could be "certified" to hear such cases related to digital forensics?

If the Judges can not understand what we talk about, absolutely they could not discuss those details like files ystem, artifacts, how and why…Perhaps some will say the Judges could render a judgment based on their experience and the law of nature. But in my opinion that is not enough…actually it's dangerous. If you don't understand what's going on very detail, you may make mistakes.

In a word, no.

If the judge 'can not understand what we talk about' then that is the fault of the 'Forensic Guy' delivering his evidence. I can speak from experience of delivering evidence at trial here in the UK - if the judge hasn't understood something, or needs more information then they will ask.

An excellent summary can be found here http//litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/what-is-a-judges-role-in-court.html

Most trials have two arguments, first is the argument over the facts of the case who did what, where, and when? The jury usually decides these questions, although in some types of cases the judge can act as fact finder. The second argument is about the law. Each party's lawyer will study the laws written by the legislature and past cases to determine the exact status of the law. Then, the lawyers argue with each other about why the law favors their respective clients. Sometimes, when both parties mostly agree on the facts, this happens during summary judgment. When the facts are in dispute, the judge will provide the jury with instructions about the law so that the jury can make an educated decision about the case.

Judges can't possibly be experts in everything forensic-related or otherwise.

 
Posted : 12/10/2015 3:18 pm
tracedf
(@tracedf)
Posts: 169
Estimable Member
 

Very few courts have enough judges to even entertain the possibility of specializations like that (all other practicalities and objections aside). Most local judges have to hear criminal and civil cases which might involve digital forensic evidence, DNA evidence, pathology reports, psychological evaluations, traffic collision reenactments, other expert medical testimony (e.g. about whiplash injuries or lung damage from asbestos), ballistics and more.

Many cases involve several of these. For example, a murder case might involve cell tower location information placing the suspect near the scene, a recovered text message referring to some element of the crime, a web search on the suspect's computer, a ballistics report identifying the murder weapon, a pathology report indicating the cause of death, testimony stating that the fatal bullet was fired at a downward angle from X feet away and a DNA test result placing the suspect with the victim. Such a case would require experts in at least four different fields.

It's the job of the expert to educate the finder of fact (judge or jury). The judge and/or jury can't be expected to be experts themselves–most attorneys, on either side, wouldn't want that anyway. It would be awesome if judges (and most lawyers really) were more tech savvy. If they attend continuing education workshops on digital evidence, even better; but the amount they can or should learn is pretty minimal. The judge should not be the expert. Most judges use computers and know some basic terminology (hard drive, browser). It's okay if they don't know what unallocated space is or need an explanation of imaging.

 
Posted : 17/10/2015 11:35 am
Share: