Periodic Reporting for period 4 - FORCe (Forensic Culture. A Comparative Analysis of Forensic Practices in Europe, 1930-2000)
Reporting period: 2023-03-01 to 2024-02-29
The projects' main objective was to explain the differing impact of forensic physicians and psychiatrists in four different European countries (the Netherlands, Russia, Spain and England) in 1930-2000. The project’s hypothesis was that culture, especially changing political ideologies, gender norms and media representations, has shaped the influence of scientists and scientific evidence in the courtroom in addition to –and possibly more than– the availability of technology or the difference between the two major legal systems. The FORCE project has confirmed the project’s hypothesis: culture, especially in the –often entangled– form of political ideology and gender norms, has had a major impact on the role and impact of forensic doctors and psychiatrists in the courtroom. We have concluded that the differences between legal systems played a major role as well, albeit in different forms than expected. Our research showed that not only the difference between inquisitorial and accusatorial difference mattered (particularly regarding the jury), but that the specific national shape of the legal system –in the form of procedural law and institutional hallmarks such as the presence or absence of fixed forensic physicians permanently attached to the court– also made a strong contribution to the impact of forensic experts in their national courtrooms. Furthermore, we established that the media made some difference in how forensic physicians were represented, but to a lesser extent than gender norms and national procedural law/institutional hallmarks. Where previous research neglected a comparative perspective, our comparative perspective has shown 1) the strong impact of gender norms on forensic practices in all countries; 2) the importance of political ideology on forensic practices 3) the importance of national legal systems and particularly procedural law, surpassing a broad general difference between inquisitorial or accusatorial systems 4) the lesser importance of technology in the forensic performances of experts.
The impact of political ideology has been demonstrated by our edited volume Forensic Cultures in Modern Europe (2023) but within the FORCE project particularly by PhD researcher Sara Serrano Martínez in her thesis (2023) and chapter (2023): she showed how the Franco regime’s gender ideology had a strong impact on the prosecution of women accused of infanticide. She also underlined that the Spanish procedural law, which prescribed that each court had a permanent forensic physician attached, was an important factor in the role medical expertise played in the Spanish courtroom. Moreover, in their article comparing forensic expertise in Dutch and Spanish cases in the Netherlands, the PI and Serrano Martínez (2024) concluded that cultural ideas on gender and pathology were so strong in cases of infanticide, as to ‘overrule’ the major differences in legal systems, formulation of the law, and political ideology.
PhD researcher Pauline Dirven has shown in her thesis (2024) and chapter (2023) how important the role of British ideals of bourgeois masculinity were (e.g. the idea of the containment of emotion) in the practice of forensic doctors. In their bodily performances, scientific practices and in dress, the latter displayed the epistemic virtue of impartiality, which not only dovetailed with masculine ideals but also with their role in the English adversarial system (they wanted to demonstrate that they were neutral, not hired by either defence or prosecution). Dirven has thus demonstrated how gender ideals were entangled with the epistemic virtues of forensic experts, but also with the form of the national legal system.
Both Dirven (2023, 2024) and Lara Bergers (2023) have analyzed how rape cases were investigated and prosecuted in practice, for England and the Netherlands respectively. Their research testifies to the importance of studying practices in which forensic knowledge is made since this perspective often reveals different conclusions that previous research concentrated on ideals or discourses. For instance, Dirven shows how rape myths could be enacted in practice by British forensic doctors (Dirven 2024) and Bergers (2023) reveals how some rape myths can be contradicted in practice by Dutch police investigation, since the Dutch forensic culture was one of ‘witness testimony’, which overruled the distrust of female victims.
The importance of studying practices in a comparative perspective was also underlined in the chapter by the PI and postdoc Parfenchyk in their chapter (2023) comparing ‘crimes of passion’ in Russia and the Netherlands. Here, they argued that psychiatrists, judges and jurists ‘made’ this crime while ‘doing law’, and that gender images and political ideology were vital to the making of the crime in both countries, albeit differently: whereas in Russia the crime of passion was seen as foreign to a socialist state (that purportedly had abolished all individual property, thus also the woman as male property), in the Netherlands the crime of passion was seen as foreign because passion was regarded as typically French or Italian and the absence of a jury was thought to contribute to less leniency for the perpetrator. Forensic psychiatrists, moreover, played a more important role in the Netherlands than in Russia, because of the TBR system in the Netherland, and procedural law that attached more importance to forensic psychiatry than in Russia.
In short, the project’s focus on forensic practices and the notion of forensic culture has proven to be very fruitful. Where previous research neglected a comparative perspective, our comparative perspective has shown 1) the strong impact of gender norms on forensic practices in all countries; 2) the importance of political ideology on forensic practices 3) the importance of national legal systems and particularly procedural law, surpassing a broad general difference between inquisitorial or accusatorial systems 4) the lesser importance of technology in the forensic performances of experts.
PhD researcher Pauline Dirven has shown in her thesis (2024) and chapter (2023) how important the role of British ideals of bourgeois masculinity were (e.g. the idea of the containment of emotion) in the practice of forensic doctors. In their bodily performances, scientific practices and in dress, the latter displayed the epistemic virtue of impartiality, which not only dovetailed with masculine ideals but also with their role in the English adversarial system (they wanted to demonstrate that they were neutral, not hired by either defence or prosecution). Dirven has thus demonstrated how gender ideals were entangled with the epistemic virtues of forensic experts, but also with the form of the national legal system.
Both Dirven (2023, 2024) and Lara Bergers (2023) have analyzed how rape cases were investigated and prosecuted in practice, for England and the Netherlands respectively. Their research testifies to the importance of studying practices in which forensic knowledge is made since this perspective often reveals different conclusions that previous research concentrated on ideals or discourses. For instance, Dirven shows how rape myths could be enacted in practice by British forensic doctors (Dirven 2024) and Bergers (2023) reveals how some rape myths can be contradicted in practice by Dutch police investigation, since the Dutch forensic culture was one of ‘witness testimony’, which overruled the distrust of female victims.
The importance of studying practices in a comparative perspective was also underlined in the chapter by the PI and postdoc Parfenchyk in their chapter (2023) comparing ‘crimes of passion’ in Russia and the Netherlands. Here, they argued that psychiatrists, judges and jurists ‘made’ this crime while ‘doing law’, and that gender images and political ideology were vital to the making of the crime in both countries, albeit differently: whereas in Russia the crime of passion was seen as foreign to a socialist state (that purportedly had abolished all individual property, thus also the woman as male property), in the Netherlands the crime of passion was seen as foreign because passion was regarded as typically French or Italian and the absence of a jury was thought to contribute to less leniency for the perpetrator. Forensic psychiatrists, moreover, played a more important role in the Netherlands than in Russia, because of the TBR system in the Netherland, and procedural law that attached more importance to forensic psychiatry than in Russia.
In short, the project’s focus on forensic practices and the notion of forensic culture has proven to be very fruitful. Where previous research neglected a comparative perspective, our comparative perspective has shown 1) the strong impact of gender norms on forensic practices in all countries; 2) the importance of political ideology on forensic practices 3) the importance of national legal systems and particularly procedural law, surpassing a broad general difference between inquisitorial or accusatorial systems 4) the lesser importance of technology in the forensic performances of experts.
The history of forensic science and medicine was for a long time dominated by a focus on technology and on the difference between accusatorial and inquisitorial systems when it came to explaining the impact of forensic experts. The FORCE project has definitely shown that a cultural-historical approach to the making of forensic knowledge proves that gender, political ideology and procedural law are more important when it comes to assessing the role of forensic scientists. This perspective has come to light because of the project’s praxiographic method, which revealed that forensic knowledge was made in relationships and that epistemic virtues were made in embodied practices.
Specifically, new lines of research have been opened up by 1) our comparative perspective 2) our focus on political ideology and gender; these two factors are in line with our original hypothesis. However, the following new lines of research were unexpected: 3) Serrano-Martínez’s introduction of the notion of ‘epistemic injustice’ into the history of forensics; 4) Dirven’s focus on embodied forensic practices 5) our attention to body parts, bodily integrity and therefore a new focus on ethics in the history of forensic expertise. This fifth factor also paves the way for a comparison with the history of forensic anthropology. Together, these achievements have advanced the field beyond the state of the art.
Specifically, new lines of research have been opened up by 1) our comparative perspective 2) our focus on political ideology and gender; these two factors are in line with our original hypothesis. However, the following new lines of research were unexpected: 3) Serrano-Martínez’s introduction of the notion of ‘epistemic injustice’ into the history of forensics; 4) Dirven’s focus on embodied forensic practices 5) our attention to body parts, bodily integrity and therefore a new focus on ethics in the history of forensic expertise. This fifth factor also paves the way for a comparison with the history of forensic anthropology. Together, these achievements have advanced the field beyond the state of the art.