Fingerprint Evidence Needs New Tools
The New Scientist carried an article recently on how courts’ use of fingerprints “is on the cusp of a much-needed revolution.” First used to obtain a conviction in Argentina in 1892, fingerprint evidence has long been the paragon of forensic science. Typically, experts will testify that prints taken from a suspect are “a match” with those found at the scene of a crime, offering, however, no “error rate” to accompany their statement, as would be the case if, say, DNA evidence were given. Yet, as the article shows, significant errors are indeed possible.
The problem is not so much one . . . [more]
