Challenging The Validity Of Fingerprint Evidence

dispute The Validity Of fingermark distinguishThe reliability of fingermark manifest as a inwardness of credit for theatrical role of appeal of law continues to be generally accepted by academia and the nefarious justice constitution. However, despite a long tradition of rhetorical identification to individualize prints thither construct been some recent challenges as to the scientific nates for reproduce recite. These challenges stem from sensible concerns about the potence for human errors in reproduce matching. A major factor in trying to establish the validity of fingerprint try is the abstractive manakin as to the physical looking ats of rhetorical intuition. The psychological aspect of forensic scholarship (the preparation of physical secern for purpose of approach) is likewise a potential Achilles wiener as to the validity of fingerprint demo in picky in countries with an adversarial legal system where the function of counsel is largely to counteract the credibility of the indicate presented.Key words prints, label, reliability, validity, prospect, error, twineIntroductionA fingerprint is a record taken by practice of law of a (usually) know individual chthonic controlled conditions. A mark is an impression ground at a offensive activity scene. The role of fingerprint examiners (dactyloscopists) is to analyse marks (individualize marks) to dress apart whether it/they match the print/s of a cognise individual. fingerprints be routinely apply by police in order to identify amusings and victims of shame (e.g. homicide) and fingerprint certainty remain one of the most practiceed forms of forensic evidence used in a court of law. nonwithstanding this, the dissimilar techniques used by fingerprint examiners have neither been scientifically intumesce-tried nor published in scientific peer surveiled journals.The reliability of dactyloscopy techniques as a sum of identification (individualization) is establish on a theoretical example as to the physical aspects of forensic science, including persistence, uniqueness and transferability of prints and marks for purpose of identification. Until late there had been no scientific studies conducted to validate fingerprints as physical evidence of identification. Despite this signifi abidet gap in the science of fingerprint evidence, the outstanding honour of fingerprint identification remains unquestioned.The reliability of dactyloscopy techniques as a means of identification continues to be generally accepted by academia and the criminal justice system. However, the use of fingerprint identification as evidence at court inevitably leads to interactions between science and the law where prefatory assumptions ar frequently challenged. There ar 2 various kinds of issues which may arise when presenting fingerprints as evidence at court (i) the lack of scientific rigour in the techniques used, and (ii) the entice of cognit ive biases on intellectual evidence.The evidential value of fingerprint identification fingerprint identification as its used in the criminal justice system is typically done by comparing and attempting to match a mark (latent fingerprint) found at a crime scene with a print taken from a known suspect. The various techniques used by fingerprint examiners in matching two prints are different from e.g. biometric fingerprint checks introduced by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) in 2009 as a means of identification to improve on aerodrome security.The lack of scientific rigour in the techniques usedWhilst the evidential value of fingerprint identification remains unquestioned, even by its critics, it is often fictional that its the theoretical fabric as to the physical aspects of fingerprint evidence, such(prenominal) as the uniqueness and transferability of fingerprints, which make fingerprint identification well suited as forensic evidence for purpose of court. However, these theoretic al underpinnings are often non backed up by scientific evidence and the validity of the theoretical framework of forensic science is therefore a potential Achilles heel in fingerprint evidence.The influence of cognitive biases on full evidenceWhilst the different techniques and methods used by fingerprint examiners vary from those used in automated biometric fingerprint checks, the theoretical underpinnings of fingerprint identification are the comparable as for biometric fingerprint checks (such as uniqueness and transferability). The extends from automated biometric fingerprint checks would not however be suitable as forensic evidence at court. The main reason is that apart from the physical aspects of fingerprints, the evidential value of fingerprints is chiefly based upon the expert opinions of fingerprint examiners and governed by the rules on circumstantial evidence. highlighting the lack of objectivity in the analysis and matching of fingerprints, Stoney (1991198) notes In fingerprint work we become internally convinced of identity element we do not prove it. And this works just fine. For fingerprints.The evidential value and admissibility of fingerprint expert evidenceThe Law Commissions report on admissibility of evidence 2008 and 2011The opinion evidence of an expert witness is admissible only if the court is satisfied that it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted.The opinion evidence of an expert witness is sufficiently reliable to be admitted ifthe evidence is predicated on sound principles, techniques and assumptionsthose principles, techniques and assumptions have been in good order use to the facts of the case andthe evidence is supported by those principles, techniques and assumptions as applied to the facts of the case.It is for the party wishing to rely on the opinion evidence of an expert witness to show that it is sufficiently reliable to be admitted.This means that guilt feelings cannot be determined by expert evidence alone and that trust in the validity of fingerprint evidence requires a leap of faith. (Broeder, 2006, p. 154)Challenging the Validity of fingermark EvidenceThe validity of fingerprint evidence is drug-addicted upon the credibility of expert witnesses validity of the theoretical framework of forensic science, and the trueness of procedures and techniques used. Despite its lack of scientific evidence, the theoretical underpinnings of fingerprints and reliability of methods used are rarely challenged at court. When the theoretical underpinnings of fingerprints are challenged at court, it too tends to disobey the reliability of methods used in a range of forensic evidence.In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the US Supreme Court ruled that forensic evidence has to be two relevant and reliable in order to be valid. However, there are no reliability studies for fingerprint evidence and fingerprint evidence should therefore be ruled inadmissible in a US court of law. Pierce (2011) n otes that the core issue in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was the validity of deductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. (Pierce, 2011) The validity of fingerprint evidence in movement comes down to an issue of trust and credibility both of which can be undermined.The Daubert case raised the need for a model by which statistically quantifiable measures can be gene vagabondd to objectively assess the reliability of fingerprint evidence. One method considered reliable by US courts is the ACE-V (analysis-comparison-evaluation- tick) method. (Haber Haber, 2008) Despite the promise of such models, Broeder (2007) argues that No expert or expert system can provide incontrovertible categorical evidence i.e. absolute cogent evidence that a certain trace originates from a particular source. There is no objective or subjective, scientific or alternative method that leave behind enable us to do this. Stoney (1991198) argues that trying to prove uniqueness by use of statisti cal models is a ridiculous notion. (Stoney, 1991)Basis for Challenging fingerprint EvidenceDespite significant issues in terms of the validity of both theoretical underpinnings of forensic science and various techniques used, the main reason wherefore fingerprint evidence will continue to be challenged as valid forensic science evidence is that fingerprint matching (recognition, analysis, comparison, and interpretation / evaluation) is in the long run a subjective decision-making answer where results and expert evidence can be influenced by contextual and tick biases (human error) resulting in false identification.Whilst Stoney (1991) appears to argue that its the subjective nature of fingerprint evidence which give the individualization physical functioning credibility, Dror et. al. (2005800) also note that fingerprint identification leads a decision making process (Dror, et al., 2005) which may ultimately result in human error and in false identification. It is therefore u nfortunate that much of the debate is currently cerebrate on attempts to improve on the reliability of fingerprint evidence through and through with(predicate) advancements in technological innovation.Attempts at improving the physical aspects of scientific evidence indicate that some problems with forensic evidence cogency one twenty-four hour period be overcome by future advances in technological innovation. Whilst proficient and scientific evidence are becoming increasingly important for the criminal justice system, Broeder (2006148) suggests that its difficult for judges and juries to assess the validity of expert forensic evidence. (Broeder, 2006, p. 148) Mnookin (2008343) argues that the courts have been seduced by superficial arguments as to the reliability of scientific methods. (Mnookin, 2008, p. 343)Considering that fingerprint evidence is ultimately a decision-making process its difficult to see how fingerprint matching could be replaced by advances in technology suc h as future generations of automatic fingerprint recognition systems (e.g. the ACE-V process/methodology). More movement should perhaps be focused on the social science aspect of expert forensic evidence (in particular psychology) to reduce potential cognitive biases and human error in fingerprint evidence the main basis for challenging fingerprint evidence.Cognitive Biases in Fingerprint EvidenceFingerprint evidence is supported by a general theoretical framework as to the physical principles of forensic evidence. However, fingerprint evidence is ultimately based on a series of decisions formulated by fingerprint examiners through cognitive processes. Whilst Stoney (1991) might argue that becoming subjectively convinced of identity works just fine for purpose of fingerprint matching, as it turns out, fingerprint examiners are highly susceptible to various forms of cognitive biases.Giannelli (2010) describes four different kinds of cognitive biases which may influence decision-m aking in forensic examination of evidence. Giannelli describes contextual bias as occurring when extraneous information influences a decision, typically in cases of ambiguity. Techniques used to avoid the influence of contextual bias when testing a new drug, include randomized (double blind) clinical trials. A similar process as part of the fingerprint verification process has been proposed by Haber and Haber (2003). (Haber Haber, 2003)Giannelli describes confirmation bias in terms of the tendency to test a possible action by looking for instances that confirm it rather than by searching for potentially falsifying instances. Kassin, Dror Kukucka (2013) describe the various contextual influences which may generate bias in forensic evidence, in terms of Knowing the nature and elaborate of the crime, beingness pressured by detectives working within and as part of the police the use of computer-generated lists that feature some suspects ahead of differents appearing in court wit hin an adversarial criminal justice system.Experiments in cognitive biasesThe importance of cognitive psychology of expert evidence has been highlighted in a series of experiments conducted by Dr. Itiel Dror (2005) in which he had took the fingerprints from real criminal cases and presented them to the resembling fingerprint examiners who had previously given evidence at court. By changing the context for the analysis, such as strongly suggesting that a mark had previously been incorrectly matched to a print (or that a mark rifleed to a particular suspect when in fact it did not), the examiners came to different conclusions, contradicting their own evidence given at court.Dr. Drors experiments showed the influence that contextual and confirmation biases can have on the outcome of fingerprint analysis. The research found that fingerprint examiners were more likely to make a match judgment on ambiguous fingerprints when exposed to emotional mount stories of crimes and explicitly d isturbing photographs from crime scenes, as well as imperceptible messages. The researchers cogitate that examiners were more likely to confirm a match in ambiguous fingerprints when exposed to contextual biases highlighting the importance of cognitive psychology in fingerprint evidence.To further highlight the importance of cognitive psychology in fingerprint evidence, an international panel of fingerprint experts convened to examine errors commit by the FBI which led to the identification of Brandon Mayfield note that the pressure of working on a high-profile terrorism case created an atmosphere which contributed to the misidentification. (US Department of Justice, 2006, p. 177)Error range and ProbabilityError RatesExperiments similar to those conducted by Dr. Dror (2005) have also been conducted by e.g. Ulery et. al. (2012) and Evett and Williams (1995). (Evett Williams, 1995) All such studies find varying degrees of inconsistency. Ulery et. al. found that when the same fing erprint evidence is given to the same examiners, they reach different conclusions well-nigh 10% of the time. (Kassin, et al., 2013) Ulery et. al. (20129) attributed such errors to a lack of quantitative criteria and limited soft criteria for decision. (Ulery, et al., 2012, p. 9)Such error rates are only known as a result of research conducted where examiners were themselves the subject of research experiments. Mnookin (2008b) (Mnookin, 2008) as well as (Haber Haber, 2003) and other researchers point to the lack of transparency of crime laboratories in disclosing the results double-blind tests where e.g. one examiner discover an error do by some other examiner and that no data exist on the error rate correction resulting from the verification process.Jasanoff (2006) notes the right of US citizens to receive information, including scientific and adept information, in order to effectuate the goal of informed participation. (Jasanoff, 2006) However, considering the increasingly co mmercialised nature of forensic laboratories, such error rate data is incredible to be volunteered any time soon.ProbabilityAitken Taroni (2004126) note that evaluation of fingerprint evidence is based on a statistical model of probabilistic inference. (Aitken Taroni, 2004) Probability may be defined as a statistical means of describing uncertainty. (Brenner, 1997, p. 126) Galton (1892100) raised the problem of estimating the probability of two prints (alike in their minutiae) as having been made by two different persons and attempted to give an approximate quantitative idea of the value of finger prints as a means of personalized Identification. Galton (1892110) calculated the probability of two different individuals having the same fingerprints (Type I error) to be less than 1 to 224 x 24 x 28 or about 1 in 64 billion.Neumann (201221) explains the difficulty of probability as faced by fingerprint examiners giving evidence at court If it is his belief that the mark probably do es or almost for certain does or is rather unlikely to match, he is forbidden to say so in court in those cases, fingerprint evidence, for or against the accused, simply does not appear in the case. (Neumann, 2012)So, how common land is it that examiners giving evidence at court arent necessarily 100% certain of the evidence they give at court? According to research by Neuman et.al. it happens in 30% of the all comparisons performed. (Neumann, et al., 2011)Galton notes the effect on probability when matching two or more marks to the prints of a known individual When two fingers of each of the two persons are compared, and found to have the same minutiae, the improbability of 1 to 236 becomes squared, and reaches a find out altogether beyond the range of the imagination when three fingers, it is cubed, and so on. When two, three, or more fingers in the two persons agree to that extent, the strength of the evidence rises by squares, cubes, etc., far above the level of that amount o f probability which begins to rank as certainty. Galton (1892111-112) fiber StudiesBroeder (2006) notes that there have recently been several highly advertize appeals against criminal convictions around the world where forensic evidence has played a significant role in the identification of suspects. Broeder further notes that these have at least partly been associated with inadequate standards of forensic expertise. The following case studies involve examples of Type I errors (false incontrovertibles in fingerprint matching) made by examiners.Case Study 1 Shirley McKieIn January 1997, DC Shirley McKie attended a crime scene in Kilmarnock, Scotland as part of an investigation into the murder of Marion Ross. A angiotensin-converting enzyme mark found at the scene was attributed to DC McKie who denied under oath that it could be hers. DC McKie was later charged with perjury. At her trial, two fingerprint experts disputed the mark belonged to DC McKie. A jury subsequent found DC M cKie not guilty of perjury. In 2008, the Scottish giving medication ordained Sir Anthony Campbell to hold a public inquiry into the identification and verification of fingerprints associated with the case of HM Advocate v McKie in 1999. Sir Campbell noted that the community of interests of fingerprint experts is deeply divided over the case of Shirley McKie and that some experts are perceived by others to be so closely associated with colleagues or organisations that have expressed an opinion that they are not universally regarded as being independent. (The Fingerprint Inquiry, 2011)Case Study 2 Brandon MayfieldIn 2004, the Federal agency of Investigation identified Brandon Mayfields fingerprints as a match to a single mark found on a bag containing explosives used in the Madrid train bombings on 11 March 2004. Mayfields fingerprints had been initially retrieved as a potential match using the FBIs Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Upon closer examina tion, three fingerprint experts reviewing the initial result each confirmed that the mark belonged to Mayfield. (Stacey, 2004) The FBI launched a covert operation and Mayfield was subsequently arrested on 6 May 2004. An independent fingerprint expert appointed by the court to review the evidence (who also knew that a positive match had already been made) also concluded that the mark found did belong to Mayfield. Spanish Police informed the FBI that they had identified the mark as be to an Algerian national. After examining the prints of the Algerian national, the FBI released Mayfield from custody. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) concluded that the reason for the misidentification was due to the unusual similarity between the latent print and Mayfields known fingerprint which had confused three experienced FBI examiners and a court-appointed expert. (US Department of Justice, 2006)DiscussionFingerprint evidence was first used in the UK in 1858 and is the most common form of forensic evidence used at court today. Fingerprint evidence has also been raised as one of the most important categories of forensic evidence admitted at court. However, a study conducted by Baldwin and McConville (1980) found that forensic evidence played a significant role in only five per cent of cases presented at court.Inman and Rudin (20021) describe forensic science as an applied science based on the laws of physics and chemistry. (Inman Rudin, 2002) Whilst this might provide an appropriate definition of forensic science, it ignores the importance of psychology in forensic evidence.The reliability of fingerprints as a means of identification (individualization) for purpose of evidence at court continues to be generally accepted by academia and the criminal justice system. Mnookin (200116) argues that scrutiny of expert evidence does not take place in a cultural vacuum and infers that fingerprint evidence was accepted too quickly in US courts. In 2013, a US District Court Judge ruled that the process fingerprint identification failed to meet three of the four criteria set for scientific evidence.The technique hadnt been scientifically testedWasnt subject to scientific peer reviewDidnt possess a known rate of errorThe ruling means that whilst the court accepts that the process of fingerprint analysis does not meet the standards set for scientific evidence, the testimony of expert fingerprint analysts may still be admissible as evidence at court.Because the validity of fingerprint evidence is primarily based upon the credibility expert witnesses, challenges as to the validity of fingerprint evidence need to address the psychological aspects of forensic science, in other words the potential cognitive (contextual and confirmation) biases of forensic experts resulting in false identification. agency of this effort might involve simple solutions such as protect fingerprint examiners from the details of crimes being investigated or having all fingerprint experts outright appointed by the courts. Other requirements might involve a lower limit of two marks or more having to match the prints of a suspect before it can be used as evidence at court.