Fragmentation of evidence

In an institutional setting, evidence available within the mandate of one institution is not necessarily made available to other institutions that could make use of it to establish proof, notably of regulatory misconduct. This situation is further complicated when none of these institutions has a mandate to deal with misconduct crossing jurisdictional responsibilities.

In the UK in 2000, the tardy discovery of evidence sufficient to convict a general practitioner of serial murder of up to 130 victims was due to the dispersed location, collection, collation and interpretation of evidence amongst a variety of responsible agencies, all of which claimed to have acted appropriately within their remit and duty of care.

1. Fragmentation

1. Uncoordinated policy-making
2. Placement of the burden of proof on the disempowered
3. Inadequate evidence to convict known offenders
4. Government inaction
5. Fragmented decision-making
6. False evidence
7. Denial of evidence

1. Unclear legal responsibility
2. Official fabrication of evidence
3. Isolation of individual decision-making from context
4. Inadmissability of evidence from other jurisdictions
5. Fragmentation of research
6. Fragmentation of knowledge
7. Fragmentation of academic disciplines
8. Arbitrary standards of evidence