Moreover, even if the methodology is valid, bias, incompetence, or a lack of adequate internal controls can compromise the integrity of the results. The Innocence Project believes that all forensic disciplines need to be scientifically validated through truly independent research and peer review before the methodologies are used in criminal cases where life and liberty are at stake. Another (conducted by the American Board of Forensic Odontology) found a 63.5% rate of false identifications, and the third showed an error rate of 11.9% to 22% of false identifications among forensic odontologists and noted that the “poor performance” is cause for concern because it has “very serious implications for the accused, the discipline, and society.” One showed an error rate – a rate of false identifications – as high as 91%. , “The rate of error in bite mark identification, particularly the rate of false positive errors, appears to be quite high.” In fact, only three studies have examined the reliability of bite mark analysis. Much forensic odontology work involves comparing dental records to well-preserved teeth of people who died in fires or other tragedies – but comparing an accused person’s teeth to marks on a victim’s body is far more subjective, and far more prone to error. There are approximately 100 forensic odontologists in the country who have been certified by boards controlled by other odontologists – generally speaking, their friends and colleagues – but not accredited by an entity that applies scientific rigor. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. “ite mark analysis has never passed through the rigorous scientific examination that is common to most normal sciences,” according to the 2002 book Moreover, no government entity has ever reviewed the validity of bite mark evidence. Unlike other areas of forensic analysis, forensic dentists are generally self-employed rather than employees of an accredited lab and hence they can avoid even that layer of oversight. Using DNA – which provides a precise identification that other methods cannot – wrongful convictions were exposed years or even decades later.īite mark analysis is particularly troubling because of the almost complete absence of validated rules, regulations, or processes for accreditation that establish standards for experts or the testimony they provide. These forensic science mishaps include everything from lab analysts who committed fraud to expert witnesses who relied on analyses of forensic disciplines which have never been adequately validated to identify a perpetrator such as: hair, bullets, handwriting, footprints, or bite marks. Scientific errors, fraud or limitations were a factor in 63% of the first 86 DNA exoneration cases, according to an August 2005 analysis of the cases published in Forensic science errors are a leading cause of wrongful convictions nationwide.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |