The Use Of Fingerprint Forensics In Criminology

Forensic science is a great help and companion with criminology. The many branches of forensic science can all give their insights and a new perspective on a case which will ultimately help in serving justice and revealing the truth. In many instances, new forensic evidence may strengthen or weaken a case against the accused. New evidence may turn up in favor of the defendant, or old pieces of evidence that are previously the basis for a conviction may be proven to be false. In its most basic meaning, forensic science is the application of scientific methods in order to assist in the conclusion of a case. Since forensic science is very broad, it has fields focusing on a genetic level like blood and DNA analysis, fingerprint analysis, viruses and pathogens, chemicals, alongside others. As stated in the article “What is Forensics”, the findings of a forensic investigation is a great help in the resolution of trials, because forensics experts do not care on whether or not a conviction or acquittal will be made. All they are concerned with is by telling the results of their investigation and ensuring the accuracy of the data they are presenting.

The one branch of forensic science that will be discussed in this research paper is fingerprint forensics. According to the book Encyclopedia of Biometrics, any fingerprints that underwent investigation is evaluated quantitatively. Fingerprints can be discovered on nearly every surface that is hard. Fingerprints on hard surfaces are identified as either visible or not visible. The two types of fingerprints that are left on the scene can be visible or non-visible. They are also referred to as patent or latent respectively. A patent fingerprint can be seen by the naked eye. The manner in which patent fingerprints are rendered visible is through liquids like blood, paint, ink, and other similar colored liquids are present on the fingers or on the surface in which the fingerprint was left. Non-liquid materials like dirt, sand, and other similar substances can also help in making fingerprints visible to the naked eye.

The process in which patent or visible fingerprint is collected is usually through photographing the fingerprints through the use of a high-resolution camera to ensure that every intricate detail of the fingerprint is captured. Although not necessary for patent fingerprints, forensics workers can also use alternative light sources like a fluorescent dye light or chemical substances that can further make the fingerprints visible. The process of acquiring non-visible or latent fingerprint is more complex than the process for patent fingerprints. Latent fingerprints require specialized tools and processes in order to reliably retrieve non-visible fingerprints that are good enough to be admitted as evidence. One of the most traditionally used process for acquiring latent fingerprint is through dusting, in which a fingerprint powder that normally consists of rosin, black ferric oxide and lampblack are sprinkled into an area that is suspected to contain prints. The powder will stick into the lines of the fingerprint, at which point it will be dusted off, forming a visible outline of the fingerprint. The outline of the fingerprint is then photographed using a high-resolution camera, before lifting off the print through the use of an adhesive tape. The adhesive tape with the print is then preserved through the use of a latent lift card.

Acquiring good and visible fingerprints is useless if one has no database to compare it with in order to find potential matches. That’s why the database in which fingerprints can be compared to is also equally as crucial as the fingerprints themselves. This is proven in a case 30 years ago that was considered a cold case, which was reopened and subsequently solved due to advancement in technology used in latent fingerprint identification and databases. In 1978, Carroll Bonnet, aged 61 was found dead in his residence. The cause of death was established to be due to stabbing. Police authorities have collected all sort of evidence that they can gather in the crime scene which includes palm prints and latent fingerprints. The victim’s car was then taken by the perpetrator. Even after trying out every possible leads and with the help of the fingerprints as evidence, no convictions have been made. The case then later went on to become unsolved for 30 years. The case was looked on again 30 years later after matches were found by using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The IAFIS contains a database of more than 73 million convicts. It is now being utilized to help assist crimes, as well as older cases which remains unclosed. A technician named Laura Casey has compared the fingerprints gathered from the 30-year-old case against the database of IAFIS (which is not yet developed back in 1978 at the time of the murder. The comparison immediately drew on likely matches, which Casey studied and analyzed for days until she found a suitable match on convict Jerry Watson, who is currently incarcerated due to burglary charges in a prison in Illinois. In light of the recent discoveries, the case was formally opened again and was assigned to Doug Herout team of cold case investigators. With the help of technicians and laboratory staff, they found various evidence of the 30-year-old crime that links Jerry Watson with the victim. Among those evidence is the fact that Jerry Watson lives near the scene in which the stolen car of the victim was found, and his name and surname initials scribbled on a flyer of a classified advertisement. Jerry Watson, who was due to be released in days while serving his current burglary conviction was matched via DNA with a DNA evidence discovered in the crime scene. The DNA test results were positive, and this, along with his fingerprints that was also positively identified ultimately led to a murder charge and conviction. He was later sentenced to life imprisonment, roughly 33 years after the body of his victim was found out.

That case is a good example of advancement to fingerprint forensics technology that leads to the conclusion of cases left unsolved for so long. In that instance, it is an advancement in the fingerprint database that sealed the case. That fingerprint database is referred to as the previously mentioned IAFIS, which is a huge database of fingerprints of criminals of every kind, even on small charges like loiterers. The IAFIS have a database of over 56 million criminal fingerprint records, along with 250 million civilian fingerprints.

The gathering, analysis, and study of fingerprints can be carried out by police officers, forensic scientists, and technicians. However, not every police officers and technicians are qualified to do the job, because most of the agencies for fingerprint analysis have a qualification that every fingerprint examiner must have a four-year degree in science or forensic science (physics, chemistry or biology.) Additionally, a certification from the International Association for Identification (IAI) is usually required as well. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics together with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences has emphasized that it is also important for fingerprint forensics practitioner to possess good verbal and written communication skills. This is because forensics workers also have duties in writing reports about their findings and testifying to court cases.

Even though fingerprint forensics were being practiced for so long and many new and “more reliable” fields of forensic science are emerging like DNA testing, toxicology, and pathology among other more technologically advanced forms of forensics, the importance of fingerprints cannot be denied. This is apparent is a murder case that took place ten years ago. In this case, the accused is Donald Smith, who was on trial for the carjacking that leads to the killing of a preschool teacher. The crime happened in Gwinnett, Ga., and the authorities were very sure that they got the real killer. The evidence against Donald Smith is overwhelming and enough to make a conviction. His appearance matched the description of witnesses to the crime and his figure is found on a surveillance camera footage that was present on the scene. However, the greatest evidence against him is the DNA evidence that was discovered on the crime scene that matched with his own DNA. Despite the heavy evidence stacked up against him, Donald Smith was pretty adamant that he did not commit the crime, and said a very common excuse for killers caught in a corner. He said that he has an identical twin and it was responsible for the crime. When the police investigated Donald Smith’s claims of a twin, they found an evidence that soon turned the case around. They have discovered another set of fingerprints on the crime scene that did not belong neither to the victim nor Donald Smith but instead belonged to a third person: Ronald Smith, the identical twin of Donald Smith. Ronald Smith later admitted his guilt after he was presented by this evidence. His confession leads to the accused being exonerated of the crime. The misunderstanding occurred since identical twins share the exact same DNA, but not fingerprints. This case proved that even though the process of fingerprint forensics succeeded in solving a crime in which a newer, and more advanced field of forensics in terms of DNA testing failed.

Fingerprint forensics is a very old practice in crime solving, and according to the website crime scene forensics, it was back in 1891 when the fingerprint forensics was first used to assist in a murder case. Every arrest made by the United States authorities has the criminal’s fingerprints taken and submitted into the IAFIS in order to match against the database. Sometimes, a small criminal like a loiterer turns out to be wanted for even bigger crimes. The IAFIS is an example that technological advancements are important in the field of fingerprint forensics even though DNA testing is the most widely used forensic method of identification nowadays. Technological advancement in forensics is even being made not only to the databases of fingerprints but with the method in which fingerprints are collected and preserved as well. As mentioned earlier, non-visible or latent fingerprints involves the use of alternative light sources or chemicals in order to help reveal the fingerprint clearly. Alternative light sources come from LED gadgets that can produce or emit a wavelength of light with filters which renders latent fingerprints visible. Alternative light sources are sometimes used with fluorescent powders in order to achieve a much clearer result for matching with a database. It is now very common when investigating a crime scene to subject every surface to alternative light sources in order to find fingerprints.

The IAFIS and the alternative light sources that are coming up today is an indication that fingerprint forensics technologies are still in development today, which is a good thing because even though fingerprint forensics are being utilized in many criminal cases, there are still cases of wrongful convictions that are made due to erroneously identified fingerprints. Fingerprint evidence is only as reliable as the process done to take it, the people who carried out the taking of fingerprints, and the database in which it was compared to. Fingerprint analysis has been the key behind the conclusion of numerous cases, but that does not automatically mean that fingerprint is not foolproof. Fingerprints may be erased, records may be forged, and fingerprint examination may be carried out incorrectly. This is apparent in a case in Indiana in which Lana Canen, 53 years old was exonerated of the murder conviction brought against her after being jailed for 8 years. During her trial and subsequent imprisonment, Canen maintained her innocence. She was found guilty of conspiring with another defendant, Andrew Royer, to rob and kill a 94-year-old blind woman named Helen Sailor. They were both sentenced to 55 years in prison. Canen later appealed her conviction in 2012, and it was then discovered by an Arizona fingerprint analyst that a detective working on the case, Dennis Chapman, has incorrectly identified a fingerprint. The erroneously identified fingerprint was said to belong to Canen, and without the fingerprint evidence against her, the case against her was weakened enough to warrant an overturn of the sentence she received 8 years ago. Chapman, the detective who submitted the fingerprint test results also confessed that his analysis was wrong.

Even though fingerprint is a good evidence of establishing a criminal’s guilt or innocence, it is best used with other forensic tools to achieve the best results. This is best seen in the previous example in which a DNA test would have led to the conviction of an innocent man if the fingerprint evidence was not found. The various fields of forensic science must be used cooperatively with one another, in order to ensure that justice is delivered and the truth is found.