Until the advent of DNA testing, fingerprint analysis was the most reliable form of forensic evidence in criminal trials. The reliability of fingerprints is NOT invalidated in any way because an examiner in an individual case identified the wrong finger from the wrong hand as being a match. When humans butcher their job in carrying out a scientific analysis, the fault belongs to the humans, not to the science.
The one US case referred to was posted on FR about four weeks ago. I pointed out then that it will most certainly be slapped down on appeal because it is bad law. Expert witnesses are examined in court to establish both their expertise, and their methodology. If they are deficient in either area, it invalidates their work in that case. IT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE FIELD.
This is a tabloid-style scare story in The New Yorker. The author was just trying to make a buck by peddling a false scare. The editors should be ashamed of themselves for printing the story.
Congressman Billybob
A big "thank you" for pointing this out. I was going to, but you did it better than I would have. Misleading headlines and partially misleading articles like this one make me really mad. Doctors sometimes make mistakes with diagnoses, too, but we don't just give up on the science of medicine because of that.
Scientists and technicians sometimes make mistakes. That's why we have second opinions, professional journals, and replication of others' experimental results for. That's also why we have trials with dueling expert witnesses, etc. They system is not perfect, but this is the human race we are dealing with, and it can't be perfected, just made as good as possible.
In this case, the system has been awfully bad about admitting its own errors, and this is one big failing of justice systems in a lot of places, the U.S. included. Look at Janet Reno who prosecuted groundless child abuse cases and put people in prison for years and never admitted her errors. People's lives have been ruined, and that's a very, very bad thing. But a good chance of rectifying such errors (however late) at least exists in free societies. It doesn't exist in unfree ones.
More often than our Law Enforcement agencies would like to admit.
When you hold fingerprinting to the light of discovery is every id 100% accurate? The author's contention that DNA studies result in a statistical figure of say 1 in 100,000,yet, as he points out, no statistical analysis has been done over fingerprinting.
The assumption that no two prints are alike was determined in the late 1800's and that has been the mindset of Juries and Criminologists ever since.
But when you begin putting peoples lives in jeopardy in a trial and the crucial evidence is the determination of a 20% partial print at a crime scene. One has to question the reliability of the expert, however, with no scientific study to back up the probability of a match, we just do not know.
What is the accuracy of a 20% match? 1 in 2000 or 1 in a million? The field of fingerprint analysis needs a scientific review. Remember it took centuries to discover that most stomach ulcers are bacteriological and not stress induced.