Whether the Current Rules, for Admitting Expert Evidence in Criminal Research Paper

Whether the Current Rules, for Admitting Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, Are Too Laissez-Faire - Research melodic theme ExampleThere are three criteria in which the judge is allowed to admit evidence from an able. The first criteria state that When the court needs any assistance from an expert the experts evidence must deal with something (McKie, 2012). This is so because, without instructions or advice from an expert, the court may be unable to reach a secure conclusion as to the subject affair (McKie, 2012). The second criteria concern the fact that the expert witness must have sufficient understanding of the theory and workout of the subject question (McKie, 2012). Moreover, the last criteria check the possibility of substantial evidence proposed in the experts reports being reliable. This issues a directive that all forensic experts must be part of a registered body of science. The expert should have ext terminateed experience in the field. They should also have a g ood reputation and acknowledgment in the field to guarantee umpire in an opinion offered (Procedures for the Evidence Act, 1999).The entire discussion in this paper revolves around the fact that across the world justice systems are failing. This is due to the fact that error created by forensic experts evidence tabled cannot be validated by the courts (Bohan, 2004).To make the matter worse, the decidehip systems are not even talking about the weakness in evidence validation. This has increases vast doubt about the authenticity, accuracy, and admissibility of forensic evidence by judges (McKie, 2012). Although not all cases are faced with miscarriage of justice as a result of sham evidence, people who are innocent do end up behind the bar. Flawed experts evidence can result in criminal conviction and even execution by law courts. The truth of the matter is that how most judged verify the mentioned criteria is a bit of a misery.