BackOf bones and evidence
Many technological applications may only be used to confirm—and not reveal—relevant facts
Premium(Sonu Mehta/Hindustan Times)
Amidst the clamour to ensure all the accused in the Delhi rape and murder case be awarded the severest form of punishment, police efforts are now trained on verifying whether one of the six involved in the crime is indeed a minor.
This person will now be subjected to a forensic examination of his bones that experts say is useful but not completely accurate in determining the exact age. It is certainly possible to reduce the margin of error using well-established statistical methods, for instance, by having different examiners perform the same test many times. However, in a case such as this, where finding evidence is the least of the police’s headaches, it is wrong-headed to use scientific tools—in this case radiology—for purposes that are outside its predictive ken.
Bone analysis is usually used to determine whether children are showing bone growth in line with their age. Major deviations, for example, a 25-year-old man not having a fully formed collar bone, usually the last bone to develop, may only be useful as a pointer to some possible disorder. Many times it may mean nothing at all—just as the lack of some or all of one’s wisdom teeth doesn’t imply a person is an adult or minor. It is for these reasons that such tests are mostly used in anthropological research where it’s okay to be off by a few score years.
Many technological applications, while useful for forensic purposes, may only be used to confirm—and not reveal—relevant facts.
It is possible to extract DNA and prove the presence of a person at a crime scene but quite another thing to establish whether someone is 16 or 18 solely on the basis of a study of bones.
The unwarranted belief that all scientific tools are infallible, legitimate and impartial—as is seen in the growing rise of the use of narcoanalysis, or brain imaging, by investigating officers in India—is a threat to the responsible use of forensic methods.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has tried to temper the discrepancy between juvenility and the seriousness of the crime committed by the use of wise discretion rather than the cold objectivity of scientific measurement. The enthusiasm for oracular but imperfect technology only sets a dangerous precedent that undermines law, crime investigation and science.
Should imprecise forensic data govern evidence in criminal trials? Tell us at views@livemint.com
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
