Editing Forensic science (section)

== Questionable techniques ==
Some forensic techniques, believed to be scientifically sound at the time they were used, have turned out later to have much less scientific merit or none.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=[[Annual Review of Law and Social Science]] |volume=4 |pages=149–171 |doi=10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172303 |first1=Michael J. |last1=Saks |first2=David L. |last2=Faigman |year=2008 |title= Failed forensics: how forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it|url=https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2312&context=faculty_scholarship }}</ref> Some such techniques include:
* [[Comparative bullet-lead analysis]] was used by the FBI for over four decades, starting with the [[John F. Kennedy assassination]] in 1963.  The theory was that each batch of [[ammunition]] possessed a chemical makeup so distinct that a bullet could be traced back to a particular batch or even a specific box.  Internal studies and an outside study by the [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] found that the technique was unreliable due to improper interpretation, and the FBI abandoned the test in 2005.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681.html|title= FBI's Forensic Test Full of Holes|first= John|last= Solomon|newspaper= [[The Washington Post]]|page= A1|date= 18 November 2007|access-date= 2008-03-05|url-status= live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080725232846/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681.html|archive-date= 25 July 2008}}</ref>
* [[Forensic dentistry]] has come under fire:  in at least three cases bite-mark evidence has been used to convict people of murder who were later freed by DNA evidence.<ref>{{cite AV media | people=Ross Williams, Roger (Director) | date=April 15, 2020 | title=The Innocence Files | medium= television show |language= en | publisher=Netflix}}</ref> A 1999 study by a member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology found a 63 percent rate of false identifications and is commonly referenced within online news stories and conspiracy websites.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/weekinreview/28santos.html|title= Evidence From Bite Marks, It Turns Out, Is Not So Elementary|first= Fernanda|last= Santos|work= [[The New York Times]]|date= 28 January 2007|access-date= 2008-03-05|url-status= live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110410011523/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/weekinreview/28santos.html|archive-date= 10 April 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url= http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0411290148nov29,1,2796064.story
|title= Bite-mark verdict faces new scrutiny|first= Flynn|last= McRoberts|work= [[Chicago Tribune]]|date= 29 November 2004|access-date= 2008-03-05}}</ref> The study was based on an informal workshop during an ABFO meeting, which many members did not consider a valid scientific setting.<ref>{{cite news|url= http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-041019forensics-story.html#page=1|title= From the start, a faulty science|first= Flynn|last= McRoberts|work= Chicago Tribune|date= 19 October 2004|access-date= 26 August 2014|url-status= live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151210205925/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-041019forensics-story.html#page=1|archive-date= 10 December 2015}}</ref> The theory is that each person has a unique and distinctive set of teeth, which leave a pattern after biting someone. They analyze the dental characteristics such as size, shape, and arch form.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Bite Mark Analysis {{!}} NC PRO |url=https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/624-1#:~:text=Bite%20mark%20analysis%20is%20conducted,defendant%20left%20the%20original%20mark. |access-date=2023-12-06 |website=ncpro.sog.unc.edu}}</ref>
* Police Access to Genetic Genealogy Databases: There are privacy concerns with the police being able to access personal genetic data that is on genealogy services.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Guerrini |first1=Christi |last2=Robinson |first2=Jill |last3=Petersen |first3=Devan |last4=McGuire |first4=Amy |date=October 1, 2018 |title=Should Police have Access to Genetic Genealogy Databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other Criminals Using a Controversial New Forensic Technique |journal=PLOS Biology|volume=16 |issue=10 |pages=e2006906 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.2006906 |pmid=30278047 |pmc=6168121 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Individuals can become criminal informants to their own families or to themselves simply by participating in genetic genealogy databases. The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a database that the FBI uses to hold genetic profiles of all known felons, misdemeanants, and arrestees.<ref name=":0" /> Some people argue that individuals who are using genealogy databases should have an expectation of privacy in their data that is or may be violated by genetic searches by law enforcement.<ref name=":0" /> These different services have warning signs about potential third parties using their information, but most individuals do not read the agreement thoroughly. According to a study by Christi Guerrini, Jill Robinson, Devan Petersen, and Amy McGuire, they found that the majority of the people who took the survey support police searches of genetic websites that identify genetic relatives.<ref name=":0" /> People who responded to the survey are more supportive of police activities using genetic genealogy when it is for the purpose of identifying offenders of violent crimes, suspects of crimes against children or missing people. The data from the surveys that were given show that individuals are not concerned about police searches using personal genetic data if it is justified. It was found in this study that offenders are disproportionally low-income and black and the average person of [[genetic testing]] is wealthy and white. The results from the study had different results.<ref name=":0" /> In 2016, there was a survey called the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that was provided by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. In that survey, it was found that 1.3% of people aged 12 or older were victims of violent crimes, and 8.85 of households were victims of property crimes.<ref name=":0" /> There were some issues with this survey though. The NCVS produces only the annual estimates of victimization. The survey that Christi Guerrini, Jill Robinson, Devan Petersen, and Amy McGuire produced asked the participants about the incidents of victimization over one's lifetime.<ref name=":0" /> Their survey also did not restrict other family members to one household.<ref name=":0" /> Around 25% of people who responded to the survey said that they have had family members that have been employed by law enforcement which includes security guards and bailiffs.<ref name=":0" /> Throughout these surveys, it has been found that there is public support for law enforcement to access genetic genealogy databases.