africa34 asked this question on 3/27/2000:

I'm writing a paper on controversial things in the area of phonetics. I was wondering how you all feel about the use of acoustic phonetics in criminal forensics -- the use of "voice prints" as evidence in a trial. Do you think this is a reliable source? Are there certain times when you feel it should not be used? Any other information would be greatly appreciated....I'm running out of time! Thank you so much.

clarka gave this response on 3/31/2000:

Juries tend to lend "scientific" evidence credibility beyond its actual value, regardless of the technology in use. In-house experts and crime labs are particularly problematic because they are oriented towards matching suspects and evidence and defending this match in court. This is a double whammy when a jury considers it "unbiased" compared to the preponderance of the evidence.

Is acoustic phonetics reliable? Mostly. Not all the time, but not so poor as to be useless. The legal system is least well equipped to handle this level of reliability. Unreliable = hearsay, toss it out. Very reliable = admissible, rely on it. Somewhat reliable is in that uncomfortable place in the middle, and this is where experts make their money. Prosecution calls X number of experts, defense calls Y number of experts, they argue it out (and get paid), the jury gets confused and bored, and the whole thing is a waste of everyone's time unless it's really clear one way or another or one side can afford more experts than the other (typically the prosecution).

Most people focus on the merits and disadvantages of the technology itself. Focus instead on the _legal_ technology (or "the legal system" if you prefer) of the courtroom and rules of evidence and precedents, and talk about how poorly the interface between the legal and the scientific actually works in the courtroom.

Cheers.

The average rating for this answer is 5.