Forensic Science: Mistakes and Biases in Fingerprint Analysis

This article discusses the mistakes and biases in fingerprint analysis in forensic science. It highlights the case of Brandon Mayfield and the existing biases in forensic decision making. The article also emphasizes the process of fingerprint identification and the errors associated with it.

Running head: FORENSIC SCIENCE
Forensic Science
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1FORENSIC SCIENCE
It is evident that, the concept of forensic has been emphasized as a complex interaction
between law and science. In this regard, researchers were of the perspective that, in case of any
discrepancies, there is a possibility that, innocent person can be convicted (Huynh & Halámek,
2016). Therefore, it is worth referring the case of Brandon Mayfield. In this case, it was observed
that the forensic authorities erred in the decision while matching the fingerprints and described it
as 100% verified. It was observed that Mayfield was falsely convicted which was due to mistake
on the part of the forensic reports. The department of forensic science requires skilled experts for
the purpose of examining evidences. In this context, emphasis can be laid upon the number of
existing bias which can be emphasized as contextual bias, motivational bias and expectation bias
(Ewing & Kazarian, 2017). The practice of contextual bias is concerned when the individual
investigating the matter has been influenced by the presence ambiguous information. However,
in case of motivational bias, the forensic decision makers emphasize more upon the evidences
that is in favor of their hypothetical evaluation other than those evidences which are
contradictory (Kukucka et al., 2017). In case of expectation bias, the forensic analyst fails to
make the appropriate decision by involving in the selection of samples from a greater population.
In this way, the analyst is not able to reach at the final conclusion because most of the
assumptions are destroyed in the process of random sampling (Biedermann, Champod & Willis,
2017). In most of the cases, it can be observed that forensic experts collect evidences which
according to him are pertinent and therefore, in such process the key evidence is left out.
It is noteworthy to mention here that, while evaluating upon the mistakes of forensic
science, it is not possible to discuss the areas of forensic pattern analysis. Therefore, much
emphasis shall be laid upon the identification of fingerprints. It is worthwhile to refer here that,
the process of fingerprint identification is associated with the observation and examination of a

2FORENSIC SCIENCE
specific target ridge detail depicted on one print and thereby comparing its match with another
print. It is worth mentioning that, the trust involved in the identification of fingerprint is
concerned with the fact that the two fingerprints cannot be same because it is distinct from
person to person and digit to digit. In case of fingerprint identification, various processes are
associated with it which are- analysis, comparing, evaluating and verifying (Ulery et al., 2015).
The error is mainly caused during the process of evaluation. It is evident that the process of
fingerprint identification and the patterns of forensic analysis is associated with the process of
decision making. It can be rightly commented that fingerprint identification has been accepted by
the judicial system because it proved to be beneficial in producing zero error rates as a result of
its distinctive character (Cole, 2015).
In some cases, it may happen that the fingerprint analysts are biased by the extraneous
influences and information and in such cases, other forensic science experts can rely upon the
concept of subjective perception and decision making. In a recent examination, it was required to
match the fingerprints. It was observed that the forensic experts reached different conclusions
which prove the fact that fingerprint analysis is not immune from the subject-matter of bias.

3FORENSIC SCIENCE
References:
Huynh, C., & Halámek, J. (2016). Trends in fingerprint analysis. TrAC Trends in Analytical
Chemistry, 82, 328-336.
Ewing, A. V., & Kazarian, S. G. (2017). Infrared spectroscopy and spectroscopic imaging in
forensic science. Analyst, 142(2), 257-272.
Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. A., & Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive Bias and Blindness: A
Global Survey of Forensic Science Examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and
Cognition, 6(4), 452-459.
Biedermann, A., Champod, C., & Willis, S. (2017). Development of European standards for
evaluative reporting in forensic science: The gap between intentions and perceptions. The
International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 21(1-2), 14-29.
Ulery, B. T., Hicklin, R. A., Roberts, M. A., & Buscaglia, J. (2015). Changes in latent fingerprint
examiners’ markup between analysis and comparison. Forensic science international, 247, 54-
61.
Cole, S. A. (2015, May). How Do We Trust the Scientific Literature?. In Forensic Science
Research and Evaluation Workshop (p. 88).