A latent fingerprint originates from the skin membrane beneath the feet and hands. Identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. However, human clones present a different set of friction skin development issues. The conclusion that the clone being directly derived from the host would indeed have the same fingerprint is false.
This is because every person has an exclusive ridge detail distinct from that of another person (Bolle & Ratha, 2009, p. 320).
The principles and processes used in the analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification of latent fingerprints are extremely imperative. Two essential principles are underlying the analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification of latent fingerprints. These include immutability and exclusivity. The immutability principle states that friction ridge blueprints do not change physically in the course of people’s lives. They, however, change in magnitude due to accidents, defacements, or skin infections till demise. In addition, this pattern does not change even after death till the corpse decays (Woytowicz & Tilstone, 2004). The principle of uniqueness argues that friction ridges grow unsystematically as the fetus grows in the womb. There is adequate variability in the organization of minutiae to make certain that there are no two ridges that are indistinguishable. This is regardless of whether they are found on distinct digits of the same individual or the digits of different persons. This principle is, however, complicated to verify empirically (Bolle & Ratha, 2009, p. 320).
The processes used in the analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification of latent fingerprints, however, depend on the nature of the surface and the value of the latent print. This is done through an array of physical, electronic, and chemical processes which are done to depict any existence of latent prints. This ensures that visualization of undetectable latent print remains regardless of their origin (Woytowicz & Tilstone, 2004).
Analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification of latent fingerprints are done by the use of ACE-V methods. This is a short form for Analysis, Contrast, Evaluation, and Confirmation of latent prints. Steps involved in ACE-V include making preliminary surveillance, stating the subject matter, creating a hypothesis, carrying out tests, generating deductions founded on the information provided, verifying the process, and then recording the final results. During analysis, all data available in a latent print is gathered to establish whether there is efficient quality and quantity. This is followed by a comparison. In practice, latent print investigators do not compare latent prints directly. Latent prints display only a minute part of the finger surface, and this may be encrusted, deformed, or partly covered by other prints from distinct or similar persons. Latent prints normally present an unavoidable source of inaccuracy in comparison making. Investigators compare parodies made by latent print on the skin (Schmalleger, 2004, p. 730).
Comparison mostly involves exploring data obtained to distinguish the resemblances and dissimilarities in the friction ridge configurations. During the evaluation, the investigator makes deductions based on the available information. These deductions include individualization, segregation, and inconclusive. During verification, another investigator carries out a self-sufficient analysis of the latent prints. Data from published studies are used to establish whether similar results will be obtained. This leads to refutation or verification of the former scientist’s conclusions (Bolle & Ratha, 2009, p. 320).
The individual characteristics of latent fingerprints are those details within the latent print that designate an exclusive occurrence in terms of type, relative position, point of reference, and number. Class characteristics of latent fingerprints refer to those features that are common amongst individuals. Class and individual characteristics have some worth. It, however, takes significantly more class characteristics and time for information gathering and analysis to have similar weight and value as individual characteristics. An example of class and individual characteristics is that criminal cases founded solely on class characteristics may be hard to prove though the results might be tremendously beneficial. It, however, normally requires a substantial combination of class characteristics to connect to a single item of individual characteristics (Schmalleger, 2004, p. 730).
References
Bolle, R. & Ratha, K. N. (2009). Automatic fingerprint recognition systems. London: Springer Publishers.
Schmalleger, F. (2004). Criminal justice today: an introductory text for the twenty-first century. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Woytowicz, C., & Tilstone, J. W. (2004). Introduction to Criminalistics: The Foundation of Forensic Science. Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press.