NCJ Number
187981
Journal
Journal of Forensic Identification Volume: 51 Issue: 2 Dated: March/April 2001 Pages: 101-122
Date Published
March 2001
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This discussion of fingerprint identification argues that a major contradiction exists between the scientific status claimed for forensic fingerprint identification and the operational framework to which its practitioners subscribe.
Abstract
A recent statement by the North American Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study, and Technology: "Friction ridge identifications are absolute conclusions. Probable, possible, or likely identification are outside the acceptable limits of the science of friction ridge identification". The statement exemplified the struggle between probability and positivity. Two issues that arise from the statement are whether a statement of an absolute conclusion is compatible with scientific reasoning and whether the denial of probabilistic reasoning is compatible with a scientific pursuit. The analysis explains the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning in the forensic context and argues that transparency rather than obscurity is desirable when presenting opinions. The discussion notes that fingerprint experts currently refuse to report opinions in terms of probabilities due to the doctrine of positivity. However, this policy denies much evidence to courts and is incompatible with a probabilistic evidence process. An inductive process must be probabilistic; transparency regarding opinions is preferable to obscurity. The future holds the promise of extensive experimentation that will lead to the ability to make probabilistic calculations in individual cases. These changes would establish fingerprint identification as a science over and above its status as a profession. Footnotes and 54 references