Vs. Subjective: The Process Of Examining And Comparing Fingerprints
Objective VS. Subjective: The Process of Examining and Comparing Fingerprints In a court of law, the results found in the comparison of fingerprint evidence is much more than the subjective opinion of a forensic examiner. As results are not based on personal opinion, but rather on an evaluation employing scientific principles to identify characteristics found on a fingerprint, an examiner’s opinion remains objective using knowledge and skills acquired through training, education, and experience. Expert testimony regarding friction ridged skin evidence has been both acknowledged and accepted as a reliable form of physical evidence as it can be reproduced.
However, if an individual without any prior exposure or training in fingerprint identification,
their judgment would be considered subjective and based on personal feelings, rather than skill. In 1999 the validity of fingerprinting came into question in the 1999 United States v. Byron C. Mitchell, Criminal No. 96-00407. This case was the first of various cases to challenge the legitimacy of fingerprint identification, since the development of standards for expert testimony outlined in the 1993 Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579, 588 case, also referred to as the Daubert Hearings (Holder, Robinson & Laub, 2011).
Currently, there are, in fact, many objective standards in place for friction skin identification backed by over 100 years of research, testing and validation which have been acknowledged, accepted and unhealed during times of Daubert challenges in court. Applying a methodical way to compare friction ridged skin, such as using the scientific methodology ACE/V(Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification) ensures that the same information will be derived by a secondary examiner, keeping the fingerprint comparison process objective (Coppock, 2007).
However, if an individual without any prior exposure or training in fingerprint identification,
their judgment would be considered subjective and based on personal feelings, rather than skill. In 1999 the validity of fingerprinting came into question in the 1999 United States v. Byron C. Mitchell, Criminal No. 96-00407. This case was the first of various cases to challenge the legitimacy of fingerprint identification, since the development of standards for expert testimony outlined in the 1993 Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579, 588 case, also referred to as the Daubert Hearings (Holder, Robinson & Laub, 2011).
Currently, there are, in fact, many objective standards in place for friction skin identification backed by over 100 years of research, testing and validation which have been acknowledged, accepted and unhealed during times of Daubert challenges in court. Applying a methodical way to compare friction ridged skin, such as using the scientific methodology ACE/V(Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification) ensures that the same information will be derived by a secondary examiner, keeping the fingerprint comparison process objective (Coppock, 2007).