Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ROBERTS, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 36:37-60 (1996)
© 1996 Centre for Crime & Justice Studies (formerly ISTD)

RESEARCH-ARTICLE

WHAT PRICE A FREE MARKET IN FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICES?

The Organization and Regulation of Science in the Criminal Process

PAUL ROBERTS*

The organization and regulation of forensic science services are scrutinized and evaluated in the light of important and extensive recent developments. The tension between free market competition and external regulation is identified as the central focus for inquiry, and this tension is explored through an analysis of two principal themes in the Runciman Royal Commission's recommendations, namely: (i) free market competition in forensic science services and (ii) regulation of the forensic science community by a Forensic Science Advisory Council. Contextual links with broader developments in the forms of government, administration and political participation are suggested. It is argued that the market approach to forensic science services is flawed in principle. After drawing attention to one fundamental objection—that the language of market exchange irrevocably distorts and debases the pursuit of criminal justice—the economic arguments are considered squarely on their merits. Economic theory is used to derive three predictions which, when taken together, provide a powerful case against extending the market mechanism to forensic science services. The proposal for external regulation by a Forensic Science Advisory Council is endorsed as long overdue, but it is suggested that effective regulation is incompatible with free market principles.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Law Probablity and RiskHome page
Q. Shen, J. Keppens, C. Aitken, B. Schafer, and M. Lee
A scenario-driven decision support system for serious crime investigation
Law Probablity and Risk, January 16, 2007; (2007) mgl014v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.