Are Fingerprints Foolproof Evidence?
Many a criminal trial has been resolved in finding the accused guilty because his or her fingerprints were found on the weapon or at the scene of the crime. Since the early 1900's, courts have admitted fingerprint evidence as admissible in prosecuting an accused. Juries have long ago accepted fingerprint evidence as proof that the accused was involved with the crime they have been accused of.
The reality is quite different. Even though fingerprints have been around for about a century, there are no guidelines that insure a fingerprint match is in reality a true match. There has never been scientific consensus as to how many matching 'points' between a suspects prints and the prints collected at a crime scene are necessary to insure correct identification. Many police departments assign someone to be their fingerprint expert but provide him/her with no formal training for them to actually be an expert. It makes me wonder how many jurors have been convinced of a suspects guilt based on a fingerprints match that was not really a match at all.
We need to insure that fingerprint data is accurate when presented to a jury. Fingerprint matching needs to become a 21st century science. Minimum standards and percent reliability of a match needs to be defined by science similar to what is required for DNA evidence at trials.
06/12/07 ( 216 )
© Copyright 2000-07 www.mypov.org - All rights reserved.
Post Your Views On This Topic