英语论文网

n been recognized by the court. The court relies heavily on the fingerprint evidences in both criminal and civil cases. In a survey, 85% among 1000 jurors considered the most reliable evidence is fingerprints [9]. Moreover, after establishment of DNA, DNA sometimes refers to ‘DNA fingerprinting’, which assumes that DNA is as infallible as fingerprint and both DNA and fingerprint should provide an irrefutable conclusion. [1]

2. Fingerprint is a non-science

In 1993, the establishment of the Daubert’s test results in the questioning of the admissibility of fingerprints’ evidences. It is first debated in US v. Byron Mitchell in 1999 [10]. The scientific nature, infallibility and uniqueness of fingerprint evidences were challenged. Fingerprinting was challenged to be a non-science because the theory behind has not been scientifically validated [10]. No verification on fingerprints based on conventional sciences: no tested theory, statistics or empirical validation process, which are all essential for being a valid science. [10]

Even it is the case, the court tries to give rhetorical tricks in order to deal with the criticisms and to keep fingerprint evidences in cooperate with the Daubert’s standards. Yet, the court has actually overlooked the real meaning of the Daubert’s test, and misunderstanding the underlying principle of it. It is clearly shown in following two cases: United States v. Crisp and United States v. Harvvard.

3. No scientific testing on fingerprint evidences

In United States v. Crisp, the defense lawyer criticized on the admissibility of the fingerprint evidences by stating that the theory behind fingerprint analysis has not been scientifically validated. No single research is done in proving the uniqueness of fingerprint evidences [1]. The court stated that fingerprint evidences were tested in the court’s adversarial process such as cross-examination for more than a hundred years [10]. It should confirm the reliability of fingerprint evidences according to the first requirement in the Daubert’s tests. The above explanation is far-fetched. The court tried to cope with the criticisms and keep this valuable evidence to be admissible in court. According to the Daubert’s tests, the theory and the methodology should be tested in the scientific community but not in the court’s adversarial process.

4. No peer-reviewed, no known error rate and no clear standards

In United States v. Harvvard, the infallibility of fingerprints was assumed in the court with the exaggeration of the final expert’s statement “zero error rate in fingerprint analysis” [1]. With this single statement, the court confirmed that fingerprint evidences satisfied with the Daubert’s test of requiring known error rate [1]. In the original expert’s statement, two main limitations on fingerprint comparison which seems to be unsatisfied with the Daubert’s test were also pointed out.

Firstly, every individual is different, so the comparison of fingerprint by different examiners may give rise to a small error. This is known as the investigator bias. In Havvard, the small error is ignored because the final conclusion of the fingerprint comparison is approved by a few examiners, so it is peer-reviewed [1]. It is again misinterpreted. The real meaning of peer-review in Daubert is requiring a research on fingerprint identification to be examined in the scientific j