FINGERPRINTS

Fingerprints: A Way Of Identification

Fingerprints: A Way Of Identification

Introduction

Fingerprints and other friction ridges of the skin have a persistent structure that often leaves characteristic evidence at crime scenes. Latent print examiners compare this evidence with inked copies of friction ridge skin from a known suspect to determine whether these two patterns originate from the same source. This examination process uses computer databases for initial screening, (Donald 2003) but all evidence presented in court is based on human comparisons. Experts must establish their credentials in order to testify, and recent vision science work has suggested that experts possess visual mechanisms that novices do not. However, these experts have also shown evidence of biases, and critics have begun to question the evidentiary value of fingerprints. (Åström 2007) In this paper we will be discussing about fingerprints that it is not a unique way of identification.

Discussion

Recently, fingerprint evidence has come under intense criticism, and below we discuss the different forms of attack on latent print evidence. Since the United States v. Byron Mitchell case of 2003, in which defense attorneys began challenging the admissibility of forensic latent print examinations, fingerprint evidence has come under attack as an admissible science in the courts. A major issue surrounding fingerprint evidence is in the information content that can be extracted and identified in a latent print. While rolled inked prints taken under controlled conditions are usually very clear and rich in detail and information, (Scheibert 2009) latent prints are often inherently less clear, are distorted, and contain considerably fewer details due to the commonly partial nature of the print itself. It is up to the examiner to use his or her expertise to determine whether the latent print contains sufficient information to determine usability. Then, the examiner determines whether the details in the inked print and the latent print agree and have a common source. (Donald 2003) Individualization is made when the examiner claims that the two prints contain a high enough level of similarity that surpasses the similarity between any two prints from different individuals.

However, determining the level of similarity between two prints is left to the examiner to establish on the basis of his or her training, skill, and experience within the forensic comparative science community. This makes fingerprint evidence somewhat different from DNA analysis, which codes a limited range of chemical sequences to establish identification. Unlike DNA analysis, which has a specific set of known features, (Åström 2007)fingerprints can be matched on the basis of many different types of features, including minutiae, ridge flow, and even shapes of pores. Because the useful features are more difficulty to quantify, it is more difficult to establish a specific statistical model that would provide the probability of an erroneous identification. Thus, the procedures include a subjective element, albeit one that can be verified by third parties. The techniques of comparison and evaluation represent an objective application of documented procedures.

Despite this lack of statistical models, some examiners have made claims as to the “infallibility” of fingerprints, that identifications ...