Fingerprints, and inexact science

The question that was sought at the turn of the twentieth century was whether or not fingerprints are really unique, and whether or not smudges should be used in court as evidence against a suspect. According to an article in the LA Times, Henry Faulds was a Scottish doctor who was the first to propose using fingerprints to solve crimes. But fingerprints have since been abused and misread by fingerprint examiners since.

Faulds was the first person to use a fingerprint to solve a crime, even though minor. Someone had broken into his laboratory and stole bottles of alcohol. He discovered a fingerprint on a vile, and discovered the burglar. In 1905, a man was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of an elderly couple. The fingerprint was a smudge in blood and there was no other evidence to suggest that the man was the killer. Faulds stepped forward and said that using a partial print to prove that someone committed the crime is not enough, especially to prove that the person killed another. In other words, just because a print was left behind doesn’t mean that person committed the crime. Other evidence should be presented.

Is fingerprints an exact science? The article addresses the fact that no one has yet researched such an assumption. It has been assumed that fingerprints are unique for centuries. In fact, ancient Babylonians would press their prints in wet clay tablets as their signature. But can these prints really be used, without a shadow of a doubt, to convict someone? Fingerprint experts conclude that their findings are exact, but we are humans and there needs to be room for error.

In fact, several agencies have been shut down pending investigation. The agencies’ laboratories are under investigation because of the wrongful conviction of several different people based on fingerprints alone.

What do you think? Are fingerprints an exact science?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-felch20-2009mar20,0,1810975.story