Fingerprint evidence is circumstantial evidence that links a perpetrator to a crime based on the principle that no two people have the same fingerprints and a person’s fingerprint pattern never changes. Critics believe that comparing a controlled environment fingerprint to a crime scene fingerprint is unreliable, leading to wrongful accusations. While some believe DNA research should replace fingerprints, supporters argue that DNA research has its limits. The FBI has millions of fingerprints on file, but using fingerprints to catch a criminal is controversial due to the problems listed above.
Fingerprint evidence is a type of circumstantial evidence that can link a perpetrator to a crime. The validity of the fingerprint test is based on two basic principles: no two people have the same fingerprints, and a person’s fingerprint pattern never changes. While the fingerprint evidence seems dry enough, some people have recently questioned the basis upon which this type of evidence is based.
Critics of fingerprint evidence believe that a rolled up fingerprint or a fingerprint taken in a controlled environment and a crime scene fingerprint cannot be compared. Since crime scene fingerprints are almost never complete, experts are therefore tasked with matching a partial fingerprint to the one already recorded. As many experts will point out, this isn’t as simple as it might seem. In fact, much of matching an incomplete print to a full print involves guesswork.
Around the world, many innocent people have been wrongfully accused of crimes based on fingerprints. Upon further investigation, these individuals were proven innocent. This kind of paradox has confused many people around the world about the infallibility of fingerprint evidence.
Also, many believe that with recent advances in DNA research, fingerprints should be ignored. However, those who still strongly support fingerprint evidence are quick to point out that even DNA research has its boundaries. Therefore, the general consensus, for now, is that fingerprints collected at crime scenes should undergo rigorous testing standards before being matched to any person.
At present, the use of fingerprints to catch a criminal is still popular all over the world. The main problem with using fingerprints to catch a criminal, other than the problems listed above, is that fingerprints must already be “on file” for law enforcement to match two fingerprints.
However, in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) currently has millions of fingerprints on file. People’s fingerprints are collected for a variety of reasons, including previous arrests and job applications. In addition, many children around the world have been fingerprinted, as abducted children are often identified based on a set of prints.
Clearly, there are many differing opinions when it comes to collecting fingerprint evidence. Catching a criminal based on a set of prints is controversial to say the least. While fingerprints have been useful to law enforcement for decades, these tactics are now a matter of debate.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
