Fingerprint identification remains an essential practice in forensic science, falling under the category of one of the most reliable pieces of evidence in the court. However, current research in the field puts the widespread belief of the unique arrangement of fingerprints under substantial scientific scrutiny, providing alternative interpretations of the phenomenon. This assignment explores the role of bias in the possible erroneous identifications, as well, as the criticism of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on latent print analysis.
It is critical to note that the DOJ does not agree with most of the criticism produced by comparative forensics regarding latent print analysis. Instead, the institution filters the provided information to organize evidence-based guidelines for forensic experts. As noted by Thompson, Black, Jain, and Kadane (2017), one of the three conclusions may be derived from the latent print analysis, including source identification, inconclusiveness, or source exclusion.
According to the researchers, the DOJ also outlines specific qualifications and limitations of the analysis, taking into consideration the novel criticism of the issue (Thompson et al., 2017). However, little evidence exists that the DOJ disapproves of the procedure because of the opposing theory published.
The unique arrangement of fingerprints is yet another debatable topic in the field. Along with the contemporary trend, experts attempt to disprove the theory of the unique arrangement of friction ridges to explain the number of erroneously convicted prisoners whose fingerprints supposedly matched the ones on the crime scene (Mars, Passingham, & Jbabdi, 2018). Despite the ongoing theory, current research does not provide scientific support for the aforementioned belief, as no two people have been found to have identical fingerprints yet.
While the theory on the unique arrangement of fingerprints has not been refuted, it is essential to evaluate the role of cognitive bias in erroneous identification. As explained by Czebe and Kovacs (2015) on the basis of the Mayfield case, four out of five experts were stuck by their previous judgments when they were asked to re-evaluate faulty prints from Mayfield. In this situation, previous knowledge about the case prevented professionals from making conclusive reports. To minimize such confirmation bias, it is worthy to detach oneself from the preexisting beliefs, keeping the information channels open.
References
Czebe, A. & Kovacs, G. (2015). The impact of bias in latent fingerprint identification. 2015 6th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (pp. 569-574). Krakow, Poland: Research Center for Forensic Sciences and Criminology.
Mars, R. B., Passingham, R. E., & Jbabdi, S. (2018). Connectivity fingerprints: From areal descriptions to abstract spaces. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(11), 1026-1037. Web.
Thompson, W., Black, J., Jain, A., & Kadane, J. (2017). Forensic science assessments: A quality and gap analysis. New York, NY: American Association for the Advancement of Science.