Bite Mark and Agreement: A Guide to Understanding the Legal Implications
Bite mark identification is a process that has been used in the legal system for decades to assist in criminal investigations. It involves the comparison of bite marks found on a victim or suspect with the dental records of potential suspects. While the effectiveness of bite mark identification has been questioned in recent years, it continues to be used in some jurisdictions.
One issue that has arisen in bite mark identification cases is the concept of “agreement.” In this context, agreement refers to the degree of similarity between the bite mark found on the victim or suspect and the dental impressions of the potential suspect. The greater the degree of agreement, the stronger the evidence linking the suspect to the crime.
However, determining the degree of agreement is not always straightforward. Bite marks can be distorted or altered by a variety of factors, including movement of the victim or suspect, post-mortem changes, and the passage of time. Additionally, the interpretation of dental records can be subjective, with different experts reaching different conclusions.
As a result, the use of bite mark identification as evidence in criminal trials has come under scrutiny. In 2016, the President`s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology issued a report stating that bite mark analysis “does not meet the scientific standards for foundational validity” and should not be used as evidence in court.
Despite these concerns, bite mark identification remains in use in some jurisdictions. In these cases, it is essential that the analysis be conducted by qualified experts who understand the limitations and potential sources of error in the process. Additionally, judges and juries must be educated on the uncertainties inherent in bite mark analysis and consider it alongside other evidence when making their decisions.
In conclusion, while bite mark identification can be a useful tool in criminal investigations, its use as evidence in trials should be approached with caution. The concept of agreement, while important, is subject to interpretation and can be affected by numerous factors. It is crucial that the scientific validity of bite mark analysis be thoroughly evaluated and that experts in the field conduct the analysis in a rigorous and unbiased manner.
