Despite calls for reform to enhance forensic science, insufficient attention has been paid to the potential errors arising from exclusions. Often based on intuitive judgment rather than empirical evidence, exclusions can lead to significant errors. Additionally, exclusions can imply inclusions, especially when ancillary information narrows the pool of suspects in an investigation. Without empirical evidence demonstrating that class characteristics alone can consistently be used for comparison with high repeatability, replicability, and accuracy, these characteristics should not be employed for exclusions. Errors in exclusions require the same scrutiny as errors in inclusions. Validity studies and reports of the accuracy of a forensic method must include both false positive rates and false negative rates, since only focusing on false positive rates can lead, and has led, to errors and subsequent miscarriages of justice.

翻译：尽管已有改革呼声以加强法庭科学，但对于排除行为可能导致的潜在错误，仍未给予足够关注。排除通常基于直觉判断而非经验证据，这可能导致重大错误。此外，排除行为可能隐含包含性推断，尤其是在调查中辅助信息缩小嫌疑人范围的情况下。若缺乏经验证据证明仅凭类别特征即可持续用于具有高重复性、可复现性和准确性的比对，则不应将这些特征用于排除。排除错误应与包含错误受到同等严格的审查。法庭科学方法的有效性研究及准确性报告必须同时包含误报率与漏报率，因为仅关注误报率已经并可能继续导致错误，进而引发司法误判。