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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
Walsh, T. (2018). 2062: The world that AI made. Black Inc.
OECD. (2023). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. Accessed July 19, 2023 https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
Véliz, C. (2021). Privacy is power. Melville House.
El-Din, A. A. (2022). Artificial intelligence in forensic science: Invasion or revolution? Egyptian Society of Clinical Toxicology Journal, 10(2), 20–32.
Mohsin, K. (January 31, 2023). Artificial intelligence in forensic science. International Journal of Forensic Research, Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Science, 4(1), 172–173.
Ma, M., Zheng, H., & Lallie, H. (2010). Virtual reality and 3D animation in forensic visualization. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55, 1227–1231.
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
Machado, H., & Granja, R. (2022). Genetic surveillance and crime control: Social, cultural and political perspectives (p. 212). Taylor & Francis.
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.
Smitha, T. (2021). Artificial intelligence in forensic odontology. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences 01–02.
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.
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.
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.
Khakare, M. R., & Fatangare, S. (2020). Survey on Prediction of Post-Mortem Interval using Artificial Intelligence in Forensic Examination, 7(5), 5760–5764.
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.
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.
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. Cureus, 14(8).
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
Neuteboom, W., Ross, A., Bugeja, L., Willis, S., Roux, C., & Lothridge, K. (2023). Management in forensic science: a closer inspection. Forensic Science International, 111779.
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
Yadav, P. K. (2017). Ethical issues across different fields of forensic science. Egyptian journal of forensic sciences, 7, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-017-0010-1
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.
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
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.
Carabantes, M. (2020). Black-box artificial intelligence: An epistemological and critical analysis. AI & Society, 35(2), 309–317.
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.
Khan, K., & Carriquiry, A. L. (2023). Shining a light on forensic black-box studies. Statistics and Public Policy, (just-accepted), 1–21.
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
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.
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.
Lefèvre, T. (2021). Artificial intelligence in forensic medicine. In Artificial intelligence in medicine (pp. 1–9). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Horsman, G. (2019). Tool testing and reliability issues in the field of digital forensics. Digital Investigation, 28, 163–175.
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.
ISO. (2021). General statistical terms and terms used in probability. Accessed July 19, 2023 from https://www.iso.org/standard/40145.html
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.
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.
Varona, D., & Suárez, J. L. (2022). Discrimination, bias, fairness, and trustworthy AI. Applied Sciences, 12(12), 5826.
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).
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.
Cooper, G. S., & Meterko, V. (2019). Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review. Forensic Science International, 297, 35–46.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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)