Sink Your Teeth into this Debate over Forensic Dentistry
Forensic odontology has arisen as a potent controversy among criminal justice professionals on whether or not the practice should even continue. The Innocence Project, a group that aims to exonerate wrongfully convicted people with the use of DNA evidence, claims that forensic odontology is a “junk science,” and advocate for the abandonment of the practice. Along with the Innocence Project, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) questions the validity of this forensic technique. In a paper published by NAS four years ago, they concluded that there is a “lack of valid evidence to support many of the assumptions made by forensic dentists during bite mark comparisons.” On the other side of the debate, Dr. Gregory Golden argued that bite mark evidence has led to multiple solid convictions, including that of serial killer Ted Bundy. He goes on to say that bite marks can also be useful in identifying age, victims of mass casualties, and to spot child abuse. Although limited scientific studies exist to support the claims of forensic dentists, Golden persists that forensic odontologists offer an accurate analysis up to 98% of the time.
To pick a side of the debate and learn more, click to read the full article here!
Citation: Stroud, M. The Verge. Biting Controversy: Forensic Dentistry battles to prove it’s not “junk science.” Retrieved September 26, 2013 from http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/25/4770070/biting-controversy-forensic-dentistry-battles-to-prove-its-not-junk.
[Abstract written by Emily McGowan, ForensIQ Intern]
