Is Fingerprint Analysis a Science?

It is certainly possible that a juror could act in that way, but fingerprint evidence is not presented in the conclusory fashion you suggest. An expert testifies as to how/why a match was found. The expert is subject to cross examination about the match and the defense can put on rebuttal evidence.There is a lot more questionable evidence presented in trials. For example, the big story in Durham NC is a retrial of Michael Peterson for murder. One of the experts (Duane Deever formerly of the SBI) that testified for the state in the first trial was found to have hidden exonerating evidence and perjured himself regarding other evidence in multiple cases.

Were you referring to fingerprints or polygraphs, there? Polygraphs aren't admissible in court in the UK nor, if TV crime drama is accurately informing me, in the US. It's used as a means of intimidating suspects in interviews, not as evidence for use in a conviction.

I think this goes to the heart of the case in Scotland. At the perjury trial the prosecution knew that the main evidence for the defence was to be based on fingerprints. Even knowing this the Scottish fingerprint experts were ill-prepared to demonstrate their findings, unlike their US counterparts. When questioned as to how they reached their conclusion that the prints matched one of the Scottish "experts" could only say "because I'm an expert!" They also declared that it wasn't their job to make juries fingerprint experts in 5 minutes. That smacks of arrogance.The very foundation of any science is the ability to defend your opinion, based on the evidence that led you to that opinion. Every single day scientists stand up and give presentations and are then bombarded with questions. Every day scientists submit their findings for scrutiny and publication.Since the OJ Simpson case defense lawyers are willing to challenge DNA evidence and this has resulted in greater stringency in collecting and analysing DNA evidence. Challenging DNA evidence is only possible because when evidence is given no-one testifies to 100% accuracy since there are all sorts of factors that can come into play, such as contamination.In the Scottish fingerprint case, the Scottish experts testified to 100% certainty which is, in fact, not the case. This mindset was ingrained in the legal system and defense lawyers had no idea of the complexities of fingerprint comparison. The lawyers now know and this may be the catalyst to bring fingerprint identification in Scotland up to standard.As to whether the Scottish FE had any formal scientific training, I really doubt it. Feast your eyes on this nonsense. When asked by the inquiry about how he went about matcing prints, one expert stated that he would identify a target area with similar features. He would then work from there until he found 16 features in agreement. Once he found the 16, he called it a match. If there were obvious differences outwith this area he ignored them on the basis that they weren't in his target area!!! This is what this expert testified to under oath and he saw nothing wrong with that! You couldn't make this up.

Well if human fingerprints genuinely are unique and can reliably be used to identify people then it is just a matter of technology capable of reliably and accurately doing the necessary pattern matching.With such technology in place I don't see that the role of analysts would be of much consequence.It seems that existing problems with fingerprinting are down to human elements that technology should eventually be able to overcome.

Whether a form of evidence is scientific or not is not dependent on the people using that evidence understanding it (or misunderstanding it and thus misapplying it).If fingerprints are a method of identifying people then accurate pattern matching and error estimation is just a question of technology.If currently we don't have appropriate technology and we are relying on highly fallible human judgements then that is an issue and does indeed raise doubts about individual conclusions. But it doesn't make the process of fingerprint identification itself unscientific.If people (e.g. juries) don't understand the nature of such evidence then - again - that doesn't make the evidence itself unscientific either.

Agreed, but computers aren't put on witness stands. Don't be silly. 'Experts' can be bought and sold like anyone else. Look at the oil 'scientists' who can't admit that global warming is a problem. The technical aspects of it, sure. But that certainly doesn't seem to be true about the legal aspects.Jon

Can you support this? I don't see anyone here stating anything about the legal aspects. I see people raising questions and proceeding as if the questions have been answered.For example, someone asks if the experts are scientists, and nobody answers. The discussion continues as if the question has been answered in the negative.Is finger print evidence being misused in court? Are we aware of flawed testimony regarding fingerprints being the norm? Do we test the experts less rigorously than we test any other expert testimony. I haven't seen anybody do anything more than speculate. The closest thing to evidence I've seen here is reference to a study whose conclusions everyone seems to agree are flawed.If in fact, people who testify in court are scientists and their methodology, credentials, and the evidence from which they base their conclusions are tested in court in exactly the fashion as happens for ballistics scientist and evidence, then perhaps what you really have issues with is the legal system in general rather than finger print evidence in particular.So far I don't see any basis for singling out finger print evidence.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think the only reason that finger print evidence is "singled out" might well be that the topic is about finger prints.

Which simply means that I'm asking why this thread has such a sloppy foundation.Or you could just assume that I'm an idiot as you seem to have done.There is plenty of literature out there on the reliability of fingerprint evidence. Some of the articles even have titles similar to the title of this thread. What's been presented here so far isn't even at the creation science level. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The answer to that question comes with the answer to the question of the OP: Is fingerprint analysis a science? If so, then obviously anyone practicing it should be considered a scientist. Which one is that? The topic of the thread is fingerprints. While I realize the motive for starting the thread was just to discuss the scientific basis for fingerprint analysis, there have understandably developed several conversations regarding the legal reliability and validity of expert fingerprint analyst testimony.Jon

I'm referring to the study that led you to conclude that finger print evidence was less reliable than polygraph evidence. Whether or not your conclusion is correct, the study in question does not support the conclusion.The OP described an instance including bad identification by Scottish police. That's worth discussing. But is is rather poor support for the idea that finger IDs should not be used in court. I have no problem with the scope of the discussion. My issue is with the lack of academic rigor of the discussion.

I think you've missed the point of the discussion. The fact is that, i te UK, prior to this case, FEs were not cross-examined, they did not illustrate the evidence on which they based their findings and they declared that they were 100% certain.Based on this the inquiry has declared that fingerprint comparisons are not science, paying no attention to the fact that the methodology of the Scottish experts in the Scottish case were sloppy. Neither does it take into account that nothing in science is a 100% certainty, with a few exceptions. Is the inquiry correct to declare all fingerprint examination is opinion and therefore not science based upon the failings of the Scottish experts?If you want more information the tanscripts of the hearings and copies of all exhibits used can be found on the inquiry's web sitehttp://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.orgThe final report can be found on that site also.

Interesting. I don't believe I am the only one who is not addressing your point.I would certainly agree that the approach applied in the case was flawed. In correcting the flaw, it is possible to take different approaches to any type of forensic evidence. You can include science which is less than rigorous, but take precautions to allow a complete examinations of the limitations, or you can exclude all conclusions which fall below an extremely high degree of uncertainty.It might well be that judges allow in finger print evidence that they should not, but that's a different question that asking whether finger print evidence, when done correctly, is sufficiently reliable.Jon seems to advocate for excluding evidence that is not completely reliable. To my view, Jon's position would be completely impractical. For example, Jon would exclude all eye witness testimony. So if your brother goes buck wild with a baseball bat at Christmas dinner, not even the identifications of his fellow family members would be admissible in Jon's courtroom. To me that sounds quite silly.I did find the link to the final report. I haven't yet read much of it.

Speaking of Politicus Maximus...I'd be willing to work on it some more if Percy wants to contact me to get it restarted...and if there is any interest among the posters here to have it restarted.

If the problem is with the human presentation of evidence rather than the evidence itself then that is a problem with the legal process. Not a problem with forensic science being somehow unscientific. The fact that some scientists are deluded, incompetent or willing to lie for money doesn't make geology (in the case of 'oil scientists') or forensic science unscientific does it? Then that is a problem with the legal process rather than anything to do with how scientific or unscientific fingerprint identification through pattern matching is.