Skip to main content

Use of AI Tools for Forensic Purposes: Ethical and Legal Considerations from an EU Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Driving Forensic Innovation in the 21st Century

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) may be a useful tool for enhancing the work of forensic scientists, but it also raises crucial ethical and legal concerns, which are the focus of this chapter. Our view is that, firstly, AI should never be considered a substitute for “human-based forensics”. This is because it is often necessary for a court to ask questions around the nature and the methods undertaken to carry out forensic examinations and when the subject matter is technically complex. This is especially true when we consider the lack of transparency of these tools, which can make it challenging to understand the reasoning behind the conclusions they lead to reach. This is a significant obstacle in a judicial debate. Therefore, it is necessary to include a human element in the process, a forensic expert capable of answering any questions that may arise from the use of these AI tools. If this requirement cannot be met, the use of AI would be illegitimate, as it would violate the defendant's right to defense. Secondly, the fact that AI tools will inevitably contain biases is cause of concern. The decisive factor is whether or not these biases are admissible. A bias that belongs to an unimportant category differs from a bias that belongs to a relevant category. An AI bias that is similar to that which is common in human-performed forensic science may be permissible, unless sensible arguments are put forward as to why an increased demand should be placed on the machines. Indeed, in modern times, the comparison to the human standard should indicate the acceptable range of bias. On the other hand, it is important to remember that AI can also be used to reduce bias in traditional forensic science by acknowledging, to begin with, that human decisions are influenced by cognitive bias.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council (US). Committee on Science, Law Policy, Global Affairs, Committee on Science, Law, ... & Theoretical Statistics. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Walsh, T. (2018). 2062: The world that AI made. Black Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  3. OECD. (2023). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. Accessed July 19, 2023 https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449

  4. Véliz, C. (2021). Privacy is power. Melville House.

    Google Scholar 

  5. El-Din, A. A. (2022). Artificial intelligence in forensic science: Invasion or revolution? Egyptian Society of Clinical Toxicology Journal, 10(2), 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mohsin, K. (January 31, 2023). Artificial intelligence in forensic science. International Journal of Forensic Research, Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Science, 4(1), 172–173.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ma, M., Zheng, H., & Lallie, H. (2010). Virtual reality and 3D animation in forensic visualization. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55, 1227–1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. O'Doherty, K. C., Christofides, E., Yen, J., Bentzen, H. B., Burke, W., Hallowell, N., Koenig, B. A., & Willison, D. J. (2016). If you build it, they will come: Unintended future uses of organised health data collections. BMC Med Ethics, 17(1), 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0137-x

  9. Machado, H., & Granja, R. (2022). Genetic surveillance and crime control: Social, cultural and political perspectives (p. 212). Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marciano, M. A., & Adelman, J. D. (2017). PACE: probabilistic assessment for contributor estimation—A machine learning-based assessment of the number of contributors in DNA mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 27, 82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Smitha, T. (2021). Artificial intelligence in forensic odontology. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences 01–02.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Khanagar, S. B., Al-Ehaideb, A., Maganur, P. C., Vishwanathaiah, S., Patil, S., Baeshen, H. A., & Bhandi, S. (2021). Developments, application, and performance of artificial intelligence in dentistry–A systematic review. Journal of dental sciences, 16(1), 508–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thurzo, A., Kosnáčová, H. S., Kurilová, V., Kosmeľ, S., Beňuš, R., Moravanský, N., ... & Varga, I. (2021, November). Use of advanced artificial intelligence in forensic medicine, forensic anthropology and clinical anatomy. In Healthcare (Vol. 9, No. 11, p. 1545). MDPI.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fattahi, J., & Mejri, M. (2021, January). Damaged fingerprint recognition by convolutional long short-term memory networks for forensic purposes. In 5th International Conference on Cryptography, Security and Privacy (CSP) (pp. 193–199). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Khakare, M. R., & Fatangare, S. (2020). Survey on Prediction of Post-Mortem Interval using Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Examination, 7(5), 5760–5764.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Raffaella, B., Ferrazzano, M., & Summa, L. (2020). Legal issues in AI forensics: understanding the importance of humanware. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Applications of AI to Forensics 2020 (AI2Forensics 2020), pp. 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the ‘good society’: The US, EU, and UK approach. Science and engineering ethics, 24, 505–528.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wankhade, T. D., Ingale, S. W., Mohite, P. M., Bankar, N. J., Wankhade, T., Ingale, S., & Mohite, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in forensic medicine and toxicology: The future of forensic medicine. Cureus14(8).

    Google Scholar 

  19. AI, H. (2019). High-level expert group on artificial intelligence. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Accessed July 19, 2023 from https://www.aepd.es/sites/default/files/2019-12/ai-ethics-guidelines.pdf

  20. Executive Office of the President National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology. (2016). Preparing for the future of artificial intelligence. Washington, DC, USA. Accessed July 19, 2023 from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/preparing_for_the_future_of_ai.pdf

  21. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2016a). Robotics and artificial intelligence (No. Fifth Report of Session 2016–17). London, UK. At: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/145/145.pdf.

  22. parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/145/145.pdf.European Council meeting (19th October 2017). Accessed July 19, 2023 from http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14-2017-INIT/en/pdf

  23. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Artificial Intelligence for Europe. COM/2018/237 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0237

  24. Doyle, S. (2020). A review of the current quality standards framework supporting forensic science: Risks and opportunities. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Forensic Science, 2(3), e1365.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Neuteboom, W., Ross, A., Bugeja, L., Willis, S., Roux, C., & Lothridge, K. (2023). Management in forensic science: a closer inspection. Forensic Science International, 111779.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Siegal, J. A. (2012). Ethics in Forensic Science (Downs JCU, Swienton AR eds). Elsevier Ireland Ltd., pp. 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385019-5.00003-8

  27. Yadav, P. K. (2017). Ethical issues across different fields of forensic science. Egyptian journal of forensic sciences7, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-017-0010-1

  28. Mesejo, P., Martos, R., Ibáñez, Ó., Novo, J., & Ortega, M. (2020). A survey on artificial intelligence techniques for biomedical image analysis in skeleton-based forensic human identification. Applied Sciences, 10(14), 4703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lazcoz, G., & De Hert, P. (2022). Humans in the GDPR and AIA governance of automated and algorithmic systems. Essential pre-requisites against abdicating responsibilities. In Essential pre-requisites against abdicating responsibilities

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mendoza, I., & Bygrave, L. A. (2017). The right not to be subject to automated decisions based on profiling. EU internet law: Regulation and enforcement, 77–98.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Carabantes, M. (2020). Black-box artificial intelligence: An epistemological and critical analysis. AI & Society, 35(2), 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Buscaglia, J., & Roberts, M. A. (2011). Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7733–7738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Khan, K., & Carriquiry, A. L. (2023). Shining a light on forensic black-box studies. Statistics and Public Policy, (just-accepted), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc, 3, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512

  35. Krivchenkov, A., Misnevs, B., & Pavlyuk, D. (2019). Intelligent methods in digital forensics: state of the art. In Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication: Selected Papers from the 18th International Conference on Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication, RelStat’18, 17–20 October 2018, Riga, Latvia 18 (pp. 274–284). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Palmiotto, F. (2021). The black box on trial: the impact of algorithmic opacity on fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Algorithmic Governance and Governance of Algorithms: Legal and Ethical Challenges, 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lefèvre, T. (2021). Artificial intelligence in forensic medicine. In Artificial intelligence in medicine (pp. 1–9). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Horsman, G. (2019). Tool testing and reliability issues in the field of digital forensics. Digital Investigation, 28, 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schwartz, R., Vassilev, A., Greene, K., Perine, L., Burt, A., & Hall, P. (2022). Towards a standard for identifying and managing bias in artificial intelligence. NIST Special Publication, 1270, 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  40. ISO. (2021). General statistical terms and terms used in probability. Accessed July 19, 2023 from https://www.iso.org/standard/40145.html

  41. Cirillo, D., Catuara-Solarz, S., Morey, C., Guney, E., Subirats, L., Mellino, S., & Mavridis, N. (2020). Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare. NPJ Digital Medicine, 3(1), 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cirillo, D., & Rementeria, M. J. (2022). Bias and fairness in machine learning and artificial intelligence. In Sex and gender bias in technology and artificial intelligence (pp. 57–75), Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Varona, D., & Suárez, J. L. (2022). Discrimination, bias, fairness, and trustworthy AI. Applied Sciences, 12(12), 5826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Malgieri, G. (2020, January). The concept of fairness in the GDPR: a linguistic and contextual interpretation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 154–166).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Camilleri, A., Abarno, D., Bird, C., Coxon, A., Mitchell, N., Redman, K., & Lindsay, H. (2019). A risk-based approach to cognitive bias in forensic science. Science & Justice, 59(5), 533–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Cooper, G. S., & Meterko, V. (2019). Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review. Forensic Science International, 297, 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dror, I., Melinek, J., Arden, J. L., Kukucka, J., Hawkins, S., Carter, J., & Atherton, D. S. (2021). Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 66(5), 1751–1757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iñigo de Miguel Beriain .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Miguel Beriain, I., de Miguel, L.I.A. (2024). Use of AI Tools for Forensic Purposes: Ethical and Legal Considerations from an EU Perspective. In: Francese, S., S. P. King, R. (eds) Driving Forensic Innovation in the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56556-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56556-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-56555-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-56556-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics