Fingerprint Evidence as a Means of Human Identification Essay

Introduction

The modern world questions the accuracy of fingerprint identification as a method in criminology increasingly often. This doubt exists because the correctness of the data depends on many variables, including the professionalism of experts, quality of image, and the context in which they work (Dror & Cole, 2010; Vanderkolk, 2015). However, today, the fingerprint identification method is the most suitable, since various scientific studies and practical results confirm its effectiveness.

Main body

The public and criminologists have questions about the accuracy of the data obtained as a result of fingerprint analysis and suggest excluding this scientific method from legal proceedings. Saks and Koehler (2008) note, “No basis exists in theory or data for the core contention that every distinct object leaves its own unique set of markers that can be identified by a skilled forensic scientist” (p. 2018). Consequently, fingerprint matching may be random and imprecise. In addition, the accuracy of determining latent fingerprints is related to both the professionalism of experts and the context and motivation of his or her work; hence, the examiner cannot claim the absence of errors in the data (Dror & Cole, 2010; The United States Department of Justice, 2016). However, researches that question fingerprint identification are often refuted by other studies confirming their inaccuracy.

Many studies that prove the advantages of fingerprint evidence are aimed at studying the methods of their identification. For example, Stevenage and Pitfield (2016) argue that ACE-V is reliable for the determination of accurate results. Moreover, fingerprint identification has been showing positive results for many years; otherwise, it would have been removed from practice. As noted by Kaye (2010), the zero possibility of inaccuracies is impossible for any science, but this does not make reasonable data inadmissible. In addition, fingerprint detection methods can be upgraded by modern technologies as they contribute to a more accurate and unbiased assessment of data. Thus, there is no need for the elimination of fingerprint evidence from legal proceedings, but it is necessary to improve methods of their identification.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the act of using fingerprint evidence in a trial is a necessary measure, since it is reliable and functioning. Although the possibility of making a mistake in this method exists, its effectiveness is confirmed by numerous uncovered crimes and arrested criminals during decades of its use. However, fingerprint identification methods should be investigated and improved more thoroughly to minimize the likelihood of errors.

References

1. Dror, I. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in “blind” justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 161–167.
2. Kaye, D. H. (2010). Probability, individualization, and uniqueness in forensic science evidence: Listening to the academies. Brooklyn Law Review, 75(4), 1163-1185.
3. Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2008). The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review, 61(1), 199-219.
4. Stevenage, S. V., & Pitfield, C. (2016). Fact or friction: Examination of the transparency, reliability and sufficiency of the ACE-V method of fingerprint analysis. Forensic Science International, 267, 145–156.
5. The United States Department of Justice. (2016). Department of Justice approved uniform language for testimony and reports for the forensic latent print discipline.
6. Vanderkolk, J. R. (2015). Forensic individualization of images using quality and quantity of information. Journal of Forensic Identification, 65(4), 581-591