Fingerprints - Revision history

IBJadmin: /* Standards for Identification */

2012-08-17T08:15:07Z

Standards for Identification

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:15, 17 August 2012
Line 51:		Line 51:

	==Standards for Identification==		==Standards for Identification==
			The law enforcement agencies or forensic laboratories of different countries apply various standards (criteria) for identification in fingerprint examination. At present, there are two well-known standards:
			(a) the empirical approach (also called “minutiae threshold” or “numerical standard”)
			(b) the holistic approaches (also called “non-numerical approach”).

			The empirical approach calls upon the examiner to require a minimum number of minutiae (or points) in the agreement (without discrepancies) between a mark and a print before concluding on individualization. The number of points required varies from country to country and also from examiner to examiner in the same country. There are, e.g., 16-17, 8-12, 10-12 or 12-point rules that various country use in fingerprint examinations depending on the standard that the law enforcement or expert agency of a certain country has adopted<ref>See, e.g., Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 289</ref>.

			The holistic approach calls for an assessment by the examiner of each comparison based on its own merit (in terms of quality and quantity as revealed by the mark and the print). The expert concludes on an individualization when he/she is satisfied that there is “sufficient” correspondence (or sufficient discordance in the case of an exclusion) between the compared images. This informed judgment is based on training, experience, and expert knowledge<ref>See, e.g., Joseph Polski, Ron Smith, Robert Garrett, et al. The Report of the International Association for Identification, Standardization II Committee, 2010, pp. 28-29</ref>.

			==Points of Match==
			Fingerprint experts reach a conclusion as to whether the fingerprints found at the crime scene match those of the accused on the basis of matching points'. At the moment there are no universal standards of matching points. Examiners historically have employed identification standards ranging from eight to sixteen matching characteristics, or "points of similarity." Yet, the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen.

			==Legal regulations==
			The procedure of appointment fingerprint examination and fingerprint expert’s involvement mechanism in criminal process depend on the peculiarities of criminal justice system. There is a strong difference between adversarial and accusatorial (inquisitorial) systems in respect with the involvement of an expert in criminal proceedings.

			At adversarial systems, it is common for (fingerprint) experts to be called by both parties: the prosecution and the defence. For this character in adversarial systems, experts are called ‘party selected experts’. The Court’s role in appointment of an expert in adversarial justice is essentially restricted.

			By contrast, in inquisitorial systems experts are appointed by the law enforcement officials (as well as examining/investigative judge) and the court (trial judge), and not by the defence lawyers<ref>See Malsch M., Freckelton I., The Evaluation of Evidence: Differences Between Legal Systems, ‘Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic’, Edited by Kaptein Hendrik, Prakken Henry, Verheij Bart, Cornwall, 2008, pp. 124-125</ref>. The experts in inquisitorial criminal justice are called ‘court appointed experts’ or ‘official experts’.

			This difference is related to the aim of justice regarding which an essential difference between adversarial and inquisitorial systems exists: the first type of system seems to deny the existence of an ‘absolute truth’, whereas inquisitorial systems take the presumption of an ‘absolute truth’ as a starting point when engaging expert evidence<ref>See supra note, p. 131</ref>. The aim of participation of an expert in trial at common law is to win in ‘battle of experts’, albeit in inquisitorial trial at continental law, expert is entitled to assist the court in finding the truth and not the winning the case by a party.

			However, in inquisitorial procedure, the parties are not completely out from the expert reporting process, since it is sometimes possible for them to request that certain specific questions be put to the expert, to make comments on the expert's report once it has been placed in the case-file, to raise supplementary questions and possibly request the appointment of an expert to give a second opinion, to request the expert at the hearing to clarify material which is still unclear, and to have their own private expert interviewed<ref>See Champod Ch., Vuille J., Scientific Evidence in Europe – Admissibility, Appraisal and Equality of Arms, Comparative Study on Scientific Evidence Drawn up for the Bureau of the Council of Europe’s, European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), Report on 59th Plenary Session, Appendix VI, Strasbourg, 7-10 June 2010, p. 90</ref>.

			==Legal challenges==
			There are also certain legal challenges that exist in fingerprint examination in practice. Here we are stressing some legal challenges that are more important in our view and are under debate in professional literature.

			* The first legal challenge is the admissibility of fingerprint evidence. (Of course, this challenge is common for other scientific (forensic) evidence as well, that we will discuss in our next presentations). This challenge refers to especially those legal systems which have legally adopted scientific admissibility requirements for expert evidence.

			For instance, in adversarial systems, especially in the United States, the institute of scientific admissibility of expert evidence exists, that contains number of rules as admissibility criteria of expert evidence from the view of its scientific reliability. These requirements are defined firstly by the Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence 1975 of the United States. According to this Rule (‘Testimony by Experts’), “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case”. Rule 702 is a result of several well-known cases in USA<ref>Frye v. United States 293 F 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)</ref> that are special guidelines to help the judge to assess scientific reliability and probative value of expert evidence<ref>See also Jamieson Allan, Moenssens Andre (eds.-in chief) Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. Chichester: Wiley, 2009, Vol. 3, p. 1289</ref>.

			In inquisitorial criminal justice, the court, in assessing the evidence, is not bound by formal rules. An exception to this principle is the exclusionary general rule: judges may not base their conviction on unlawfully obtained evidence.

			* The second legal challenge that we prefer to stress here is the legal regulation of fingerprint examination method. In particular, some authors find the necessity to regulate the fingerprint examination methodology by law. The core sense of this approach is that fingerprint evidence obtained by a method, that is not legally regulated, cannot be considered as a legally obtained evidence and ‘…the defence may argue that evidence obtained with the help of this (forensic) method is “illegally obtained evidence”. Art. 6 of the ECHR guarantees every defendant a fair trial. Use of illegally obtained evidence may very well conflict with the principle.’<ref>Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 174</ref>. Thus, the utilization of methods that have no legal basis might very well be in conflict with the fair trial concept laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR.

			* If the method or technique furthermore invades the privacy of the defendant, the defence can also argue that Art. 8 (the right of privacy) has been violated if the method used was not “in accordance with the law”.’<ref>See Ibid.</ref>. The application of certain expert methods is related to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Especially, the methods that are directly addressed to individual identification (e.g., fingerprints, DNA analysis, handwriting, audio-video records, etc.) make it possible to receive amount of personal information<ref>See Kastanidou-Symeonidou, E., “DNA Analysis and Criminal Proceedings: the European Institutional Framework”, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2011, Vol. 19, pp. 139-160</ref>. These methods restrict the right of privacy and, therefore, bear potential for its prejudice. Hence, the application of these methods should be realized only in the borders of applicable procedural guarantees.

	==Notes==		==Notes==

IBJadmin: /* Standards for Identification */

2012-08-17T08:02:59Z

Standards for Identification

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 17 August 2012
Line 51:		Line 51:

	==Standards for Identification==		==Standards for Identification==
	The law enforcement agencies or forensic laboratories of different countries apply various standards (criteria) for identification in fingerprint examination. At present, there are two well-known standards:
	~~(a) the empirical approach (also called “minutiae threshold” or “numerical standard”)~~
	~~(b) the holistic approaches (also called “non-numerical approach”).~~

	The empirical approach calls upon the examiner to require a minimum number of minutiae (or points) in the agreement (without discrepancies) between a mark and a print before concluding on individualization. The number of points required varies from country to country and also from examiner to examiner in the same country. There are, e.g., 16-17, 8-12, 10-12 or 12-point rules that various country use in fingerprint examinations depending on the standard that the law enforcement or expert agency of a certain country has adopted<ref>See, e.g., Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 289</ref>.

	The holistic approach calls for an assessment by the examiner of each comparison based on its own merit (in terms of quality and quantity as revealed by the mark and the print). The expert concludes on an individualization when he/she is satisfied that there is “sufficient” correspondence (or sufficient discordance in the case of an exclusion) between the compared images. This informed judgment is based on training, experience, and expert knowledge<ref>See, e.g., Joseph Polski, Ron Smith, Robert Garrett, et al. The Report of the International Association for Identification, Standardization II Committee, 2010, pp. 28-29.<ref/>.

	~~==Points of Match==~~
	Fingerprint experts reach a conclusion as to whether the fingerprints found at the crime scene match those of the accused on the basis of matching points'. At the moment there are no universal standards of matching points. Examiners historically have employed identification standards ranging from eight to sixteen matching characteristics, or "points of similarity." Yet, the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen.

	~~==Legal regulations==~~
	The procedure of appointment fingerprint examination and fingerprint expert’s involvement mechanism in criminal process depend on the peculiarities of criminal justice system. There is a strong difference between adversarial and accusatorial (inquisitorial) systems in respect with the involvement of an expert in criminal proceedings.

	At adversarial systems, it is common for (fingerprint) experts to be called by both parties: the prosecution and the defence. For this character in adversarial systems, experts are called ‘party selected experts’. The Court’s role in appointment of an expert in adversarial justice is essentially restricted.

	By contrast, in inquisitorial systems experts are appointed by the law enforcement officials (as well as examining/investigative judge) and the court (trial judge), and not by the defence lawyers<ref>See Malsch M., Freckelton I., The Evaluation of Evidence: Differences Between Legal Systems, ‘Legal Evidence and Proof: Statistics, Stories, Logic’, Edited by Kaptein Hendrik, Prakken Henry, Verheij Bart, Cornwall, 2008, pp. 124-125.<ref/>. The experts in inquisitorial criminal justice are called ‘court appointed experts’ or ‘official experts’.

	This difference is related to the aim of justice regarding which an essential difference between adversarial and inquisitorial systems exists: the first type of system seems to deny the existence of an ‘absolute truth’, whereas inquisitorial systems take the presumption of an ‘absolute truth’ as a starting point when engaging expert evidence<ref>See supra note, p. 131<ref/>. The aim of participation of an expert in trial at common law is to win in ‘battle of experts’, albeit in inquisitorial trial at continental law, expert is entitled to assist the court in finding the truth and not the winning the case by a party.

	However, in inquisitorial procedure, the parties are not completely out from the expert reporting process, since it is sometimes possible for them to request that certain specific questions be put to the expert, to make comments on the expert's report once it has been placed in the case-file, to raise supplementary questions and possibly request the appointment of an expert to give a second opinion, to request the expert at the hearing to clarify material which is still unclear, and to have their own private expert interviewed<ref>See Champod Ch., Vuille J., Scientific Evidence in Europe – Admissibility, Appraisal and Equality of Arms, Comparative Study on Scientific Evidence Drawn up for the Bureau of the Council of Europe’s, European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), Report on 59th Plenary Session, Appendix VI, Strasbourg, 7-10 June 2010, p. 90<ref/>.

	~~==Legal Challenges==~~
	There are also certain legal challenges that exist in fingerprint examination in practice. Here we are stressing some legal challenges that are more important in our view and are under debate in professional literature.

	* The first legal challenge is the admissibility of fingerprint evidence. (Of course, this challenge is common for other scientific (forensic) evidence as well, that we will discuss in our next presentations). This challenge refers to especially those legal systems which have legally adopted scientific admissibility requirements for expert evidence.

	For instance, in adversarial systems, especially in the United States, the institute of scientific admissibility of expert evidence exists, that contains number of rules as admissibility criteria of expert evidence from the view of its scientific reliability. These requirements are defined firstly by the Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence 1975 of the United States. According to this Rule (‘Testimony by Experts’), “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case”. Rule 702 is a result of several well-known cases in USA<ref>Frye v. United States 293 F 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).<ref/> that are special guidelines to help the judge to assess scientific reliability and probative value of expert evidence<ref>See also Jamieson Allan, Moenssens Andre (eds.-in chief) Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. Chichester: Wiley, 2009, Vol. 3, p. 1289.<ref/>.

	In inquisitorial criminal justice, the court, in assessing the evidence, is not bound by formal rules. An exception to this principle is the exclusionary general rule: judges may not base their conviction on unlawfully obtained evidence.

	* The second legal challenge that we prefer to stress here is the legal regulation of fingerprint examination method. In particular, some authors find the necessity to regulate the fingerprint examination methodology by law. The core sense of this approach is that fingerprint evidence obtained by a method, that is not legally regulated, cannot be considered as a legally obtained evidence and ‘…the defence may argue that evidence obtained with the help of this (forensic) method is “illegally obtained evidence”. Art. 6 of the ECHR guarantees every defendant a fair trial. Use of illegally obtained evidence may very well conflict with the principle.’<ref>Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 174<ref/>. Thus, the utilization of methods that have no legal basis might very well be in conflict with the fair trial concept laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR.

	* If the method or technique furthermore invades the privacy of the defendant, the defence can also argue that Art. 8 (the right of privacy) has been violated if the method used was not “in accordance with the law”<ref>See Ibid.<ref/>. The application of certain expert methods is related to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Especially, the methods that are directly addressed to individual identification (e.g., fingerprints, DNA analysis, handwriting, audio-video records, etc.) make it possible to receive amount of personal information<ref>See Kastanidou-Symeonidou, E., “DNA Analysis and Criminal Proceedings: the European Institutional Framework”, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2011, Vol. 19, pp. 139-160</ref>. These methods restrict the right of privacy and, therefore, bear potential for its prejudice. Hence, the application of these methods should be realized only in the borders of applicable procedural guarantees.

	==Notes==		==Notes==

IBJadmin: /* Standards for Identification */

2012-08-16T15:37:38Z

Standards for Identification

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 16 August 2012
Line 57:		Line 57:
	The empirical approach calls upon the examiner to require a minimum number of minutiae (or points) in the agreement (without discrepancies) between a mark and a print before concluding on individualization. The number of points required varies from country to country and also from examiner to examiner in the same country. There are, e.g., 16-17, 8-12, 10-12 or 12-point rules that various country use in fingerprint examinations depending on the standard that the law enforcement or expert agency of a certain country has adopted<ref>See, e.g., Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 289</ref>.		The empirical approach calls upon the examiner to require a minimum number of minutiae (or points) in the agreement (without discrepancies) between a mark and a print before concluding on individualization. The number of points required varies from country to country and also from examiner to examiner in the same country. There are, e.g., 16-17, 8-12, 10-12 or 12-point rules that various country use in fingerprint examinations depending on the standard that the law enforcement or expert agency of a certain country has adopted<ref>See, e.g., Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 289</ref>.

	The holistic approach calls for an assessment by the examiner of each comparison based on its own merit (in terms of quality and quantity as revealed by the mark and the print). The expert concludes on an individualization when he/she is satisfied that there is “sufficient” correspondence (or sufficient discordance in the case of an exclusion) between the compared images. This informed judgment is based on training, experience, and expert knowledge.		The holistic approach calls for an assessment by the examiner of each comparison based on its own merit (in terms of quality and quantity as revealed by the mark and the print). The expert concludes on an individualization when he/she is satisfied that there is “sufficient” correspondence (or sufficient discordance in the case of an exclusion) between the compared images. This informed judgment is based on training, experience, and expert knowledge<ref>See, e.g., Joseph Polski, Ron Smith, Robert Garrett, et al. The Report of the International Association for Identification, Standardization II Committee, 2010, pp. 28-29.<ref/>.


	==Points of Match==		==Points of Match==

IBJadmin: /* Standards for Identification */

2012-08-16T15:36:36Z

Standards for Identification

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 16 August 2012
Line 57:		Line 57:
	The empirical approach calls upon the examiner to require a minimum number of minutiae (or points) in the agreement (without discrepancies) between a mark and a print before concluding on individualization. The number of points required varies from country to country and also from examiner to examiner in the same country. There are, e.g., 16-17, 8-12, 10-12 or 12-point rules that various country use in fingerprint examinations depending on the standard that the law enforcement or expert agency of a certain country has adopted<ref>See, e.g., Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 289</ref>.		The empirical approach calls upon the examiner to require a minimum number of minutiae (or points) in the agreement (without discrepancies) between a mark and a print before concluding on individualization. The number of points required varies from country to country and also from examiner to examiner in the same country. There are, e.g., 16-17, 8-12, 10-12 or 12-point rules that various country use in fingerprint examinations depending on the standard that the law enforcement or expert agency of a certain country has adopted<ref>See, e.g., Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 289</ref>.

	The holistic approach calls for an assessment by the examiner of each comparison based on its own merit (in terms of quality and quantity as revealed by the mark and the print). The expert concludes on an individualization when he/she is satisfied that there is “sufficient” correspondence (or sufficient discordance in the case of an exclusion) between the compared images. This informed judgment is based on training, experience, and expert knowledge~~<ref>See, e.g., Joseph Polski, Ron Smith, Robert Garrett, et al. The Report of the International Association for Identification, Standardization II Committee, 2010, pp. 28-29<ref/>~~.		The holistic approach calls for an assessment by the examiner of each comparison based on its own merit (in terms of quality and quantity as revealed by the mark and the print). The expert concludes on an individualization when he/she is satisfied that there is “sufficient” correspondence (or sufficient discordance in the case of an exclusion) between the compared images. This informed judgment is based on training, experience, and expert knowledge.


Line 85:		Line 85:
	* The second legal challenge that we prefer to stress here is the legal regulation of fingerprint examination method. In particular, some authors find the necessity to regulate the fingerprint examination methodology by law. The core sense of this approach is that fingerprint evidence obtained by a method, that is not legally regulated, cannot be considered as a legally obtained evidence and ‘…the defence may argue that evidence obtained with the help of this (forensic) method is “illegally obtained evidence”. Art. 6 of the ECHR guarantees every defendant a fair trial. Use of illegally obtained evidence may very well conflict with the principle.’<ref>Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 174<ref/>. Thus, the utilization of methods that have no legal basis might very well be in conflict with the fair trial concept laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR.		* The second legal challenge that we prefer to stress here is the legal regulation of fingerprint examination method. In particular, some authors find the necessity to regulate the fingerprint examination methodology by law. The core sense of this approach is that fingerprint evidence obtained by a method, that is not legally regulated, cannot be considered as a legally obtained evidence and ‘…the defence may argue that evidence obtained with the help of this (forensic) method is “illegally obtained evidence”. Art. 6 of the ECHR guarantees every defendant a fair trial. Use of illegally obtained evidence may very well conflict with the principle.’<ref>Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 174<ref/>. Thus, the utilization of methods that have no legal basis might very well be in conflict with the fair trial concept laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR.

	* If the method or technique furthermore invades the privacy of the defendant, the defence can also argue that Art. 8 (the right of privacy) has been violated if the method used was not “in accordance with the law”<ref>See Ibid.<ref/>. The application of certain expert methods is related to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Especially, the methods that are directly addressed to individual identification (e.g., fingerprints, DNA analysis, handwriting, audio-video records, etc.) make it possible to receive amount of personal information<ref>See Kastanidou-Symeonidou, E., “DNA Analysis and Criminal Proceedings: the European Institutional Framework”, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2011, Vol. 19, pp. 139-160</ref>. These methods restrict the right of privacy and, therefore, bear potential for its prejudice. Hence, the application of these methods should be realized only in the borders of applicable procedural guarantees.		* If the method or technique furthermore invades the privacy of the defendant, the defence can also argue that Art. 8 (the right of privacy) has been violated if the method used was not “in accordance with the law”<ref>See Ibid.<ref/>. The application of certain expert methods is related to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Especially, the methods that are directly addressed to individual identification (e.g., fingerprints, DNA analysis, handwriting, audio-video records, etc.) make it possible to receive amount of personal information<ref>See Kastanidou-Symeonidou, E., “DNA Analysis and Criminal Proceedings: the European Institutional Framework”, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2011, Vol. 19, pp. 139-160</ref>. These methods restrict the right of privacy and, therefore, bear potential for its prejudice. Hence, the application of these methods should be realized only in the borders of applicable procedural guarantees.


	==Notes==		==Notes==

IBJadmin: /* Standards for Identification */

2012-08-16T15:35:52Z

Standards for Identification

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 16 August 2012
Line 85:		Line 85:
	* The second legal challenge that we prefer to stress here is the legal regulation of fingerprint examination method. In particular, some authors find the necessity to regulate the fingerprint examination methodology by law. The core sense of this approach is that fingerprint evidence obtained by a method, that is not legally regulated, cannot be considered as a legally obtained evidence and ‘…the defence may argue that evidence obtained with the help of this (forensic) method is “illegally obtained evidence”. Art. 6 of the ECHR guarantees every defendant a fair trial. Use of illegally obtained evidence may very well conflict with the principle.’<ref>Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 174<ref/>. Thus, the utilization of methods that have no legal basis might very well be in conflict with the fair trial concept laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR.		* The second legal challenge that we prefer to stress here is the legal regulation of fingerprint examination method. In particular, some authors find the necessity to regulate the fingerprint examination methodology by law. The core sense of this approach is that fingerprint evidence obtained by a method, that is not legally regulated, cannot be considered as a legally obtained evidence and ‘…the defence may argue that evidence obtained with the help of this (forensic) method is “illegally obtained evidence”. Art. 6 of the ECHR guarantees every defendant a fair trial. Use of illegally obtained evidence may very well conflict with the principle.’<ref>Nijboer J.F., Sprangers W.J.J.M. (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquiry into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 2000, p. 174<ref/>. Thus, the utilization of methods that have no legal basis might very well be in conflict with the fair trial concept laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR.

	* If the method or technique furthermore invades the privacy of the defendant, the defence can also argue that Art. 8 (the right of privacy) has been violated if the method used was not “in accordance with the law”<ref>See Ibid.<ref/>. The application of certain expert methods is related to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Especially, the methods that are directly addressed to individual identification (e.g., fingerprints, DNA analysis, handwriting, audio-video records, etc.) make it possible to receive amount of personal information<ref>See Kastanidou-Symeonidou, E., “DNA Analysis and Criminal Proceedings: the European Institutional Framework”, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2011, Vol. 19, pp. 139-160<ref/>. These methods restrict the right of privacy and, therefore, bear potential for its prejudice. Hence, the application of these methods should be realized only in the borders of applicable procedural guarantees.		* If the method or technique furthermore invades the privacy of the defendant, the defence can also argue that Art. 8 (the right of privacy) has been violated if the method used was not “in accordance with the law”<ref>See Ibid.<ref/>. The application of certain expert methods is related to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Especially, the methods that are directly addressed to individual identification (e.g., fingerprints, DNA analysis, handwriting, audio-video records, etc.) make it possible to receive amount of personal information<ref>See Kastanidou-Symeonidou, E., “DNA Analysis and Criminal Proceedings: the European Institutional Framework”, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2011, Vol. 19, pp. 139-160</ref>. These methods restrict the right of privacy and, therefore, bear potential for its prejudice. Hence, the application of these methods should be realized only in the borders of applicable procedural guarantees.

IBJadmin at 15:35, 16 August 2012

2012-08-16T15:35:22Z

Show changes

IBJadmin at 15:07, 16 August 2012

2012-08-16T15:07:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 16 August 2012
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Fingerprint identification is utilized at many levels of the process. Fingerprints are commonly used in relation to:		Fingerprint identification is utilized at many levels of the process. Fingerprints are commonly used in relation to:
	* Warrants and extradition: police officers and jailors use such identification 'and to facilitate arrest.		* Warrants and extradition: police officers and jailors use such identification to confirm a suspect's identity and to facilitate arrest.
	* Charging decisions: Positive and negative conclusions on fingerprint identification evidence determine the strength of the case and the appropriate charges to file		* Charging decisions: Positive and negative conclusions on fingerprint identification evidence determine the strength of the case and the appropriate charges to file
	* Jury Trials: Latent fingerprint examiners, which are the prosecution's expert evidence also use this type of evidence to conclude whether the fingerprints of the accused match those found at the crime scene.		* Jury Trials: Latent fingerprint examiners, which are the prosecution's expert evidence also use this type of evidence to conclude whether the fingerprints of the accused match those found at the crime scene.
	* Appeals level: fingerprint identification evidence is used to ''appropriate and that any other alleged error at trial should be viewed as harmless error considering the strong weight of the fingerprint identification evidence.		* Appeals level: fingerprint identification evidence is used to bolster the prosecution's argument that the jury's verdict was appropriate and that any other alleged error at trial should be viewed as harmless error considering the strong weight of the fingerprint identification evidence.

	== Types of Fingerprints ==		== Types of Fingerprints ==

	There are two types of fingerprints:		There are two types of fingerprints:
	* ' or ' prints: obtained by individuals inking their fingers and rolling each fingertip from edge to edge on paper - these are also called fingerprints' because the identity of the person is known when they are taken and		* ''Rolled'' or ''inked'' prints: obtained by individuals inking their fingers and rolling each fingertip from edge to edge on paper - these are also called ''known fingerprints'' because the identity of the person is known when they are taken and
	* Latent fingerprints: obtained by using fingerprint powder to make the latent print visible. Once the latent print is made visible, tape is used to lift the latent print from its . identification experts who compare the friction ridge detail in the known print. Both types are utilized in the criminal justice system		* Latent fingerprints: obtained by using fingerprint powder to make the latent print visible. Once the latent print is made visible, tape is used to lift the latent print from its original surface onto a lift card. These lift cards are examined by fingerprint identification experts who compare the friction ridge detail in the known print. Both types are utilized in the criminal justice system

	== Points of Match ==		== Points of Match ==

	Fingerprint experts reach a conclusion as to whether the fingerprints found at the crime scene match those of the accused on the basis of points'. At the moment there are no universal standards of matching points. Examiners historically have employed identification standards ranging from eight to sixteen matching characteristics, or "points of similarity.", the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen.		Fingerprint experts reach a conclusion as to whether the fingerprints found at the crime scene match those of the accused on the basis of matching points'. At the moment there are no universal standards of matching points. Examiners historically have employed identification standards ranging from eight to sixteen matching characteristics, or "points of similarity." Yet, the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen.

	----		----
	See [[Evidence]]		See [[Evidence]]

Jyoder at 08:39, 27 July 2010

2010-07-27T08:39:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:39, 27 July 2010
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Fingerprint experts reach a conclusion as to whether the fingerprints found at the crime scene match those of the accused on the basis of �matching points'. At the moment there are no universal standards of matching points. Examiners historically have employed identification standards ranging from eight to sixteen matching characteristics, or "points of similarity."�Yet, the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen.		Fingerprint experts reach a conclusion as to whether the fingerprints found at the crime scene match those of the accused on the basis of �matching points'. At the moment there are no universal standards of matching points. Examiners historically have employed identification standards ranging from eight to sixteen matching characteristics, or "points of similarity."�Yet, the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen.

			----
			See [[Evidence]]

Ddemetriou at 09:05, 8 April 2010

2010-04-08T09:05:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:05, 8 April 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:
	* �Rolled' or �inked' prints: obtained by individuals inking their fingers and rolling each fingertip from edge to edge on paper - these are also called �known fingerprints' because the identity of the person is known when they are taken and		* �Rolled' or �inked' prints: obtained by individuals inking their fingers and rolling each fingertip from edge to edge on paper - these are also called �known fingerprints' because the identity of the person is known when they are taken and
	* Latent fingerprints: obtained by using fingerprint powder to make the latent print visible. Once the latent print is made visible, tape is used to lift the latent print from its original�surface�onto�a lift�card. These�lift�cards�are�examined�by�fingerprint identification experts who compare the friction ridge detail in the known print. Both types are utilized in the criminal justice system		* Latent fingerprints: obtained by using fingerprint powder to make the latent print visible. Once the latent print is made visible, tape is used to lift the latent print from its original�surface�onto�a lift�card. These�lift�cards�are�examined�by�fingerprint identification experts who compare the friction ridge detail in the known print. Both types are utilized in the criminal justice system


	== Points of Match ==		== Points of Match ==

	Fingerprint experts reach a conclusion as to whether the fingerprints found at the crime scene match those of the accused on the basis of �matching points'. At the moment there are no universal standards of matching points. Examiners historically have employed identification standards ranging from eight to sixteen matching characteristics, or "points of similarity."�Yet, the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen.		Fingerprint experts reach a conclusion as to whether the fingerprints found at the crime scene match those of the accused on the basis of �matching points'. At the moment there are no universal standards of matching points. Examiners historically have employed identification standards ranging from eight to sixteen matching characteristics, or "points of similarity."�Yet, the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen.

Ddemetriou at 09:05, 8 April 2010

2010-04-08T09:05:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:05, 8 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
			== When are fingerprints utilized? ==
	== ~~At what stages~~ are fingerprints utilized? ==

	Fingerprint identification is utilized at many levels of the process. Fingerprints are commonly used in relation to:		Fingerprint identification is utilized at many levels of the process. Fingerprints are commonly used in relation to:
Line 8:		Line 7:
	* Appeals level: fingerprint identification evidence is used to bolster�the�prosecution's�argument�that�the�jury's�verdict�was appropriate and that any other alleged error at trial should be viewed as harmless error considering the strong weight of the fingerprint identification evidence.		* Appeals level: fingerprint identification evidence is used to bolster�the�prosecution's�argument�that�the�jury's�verdict�was appropriate and that any other alleged error at trial should be viewed as harmless error considering the strong weight of the fingerprint identification evidence.

	== Types of ~~fingerprints~~ ==		== Types of Fingerprints ==

	There are two types of fingerprints:		There are two types of fingerprints:
	* �Rolled' or �inked' prints: obtained by individuals inking their fingers and rolling each fingertip from edge to edge on paper - these are also called �known fingerprints' because the identity of the person is known when they are taken and		* �Rolled' or �inked' prints: obtained by individuals inking their fingers and rolling each fingertip from edge to edge on paper - these are also called �known fingerprints' because the identity of the person is known when they are taken and
	* Latent fingerprints: obtained by using fingerprint powder to make the latent print visible. Once the latent print is made visible, tape is used to lift the latent print from its original�surface�onto�a lift�card. These�lift�cards�are�examined�by�fingerprint identification experts who compare the friction ridge detail in the known print. Both types are utilized in the criminal justice system		* Latent fingerprints: obtained by using fingerprint powder to make the latent print visible. Once the latent print is made visible, tape is used to lift the latent print from its original�surface�onto�a lift�card. These�lift�cards�are�examined�by�fingerprint identification experts who compare the friction ridge detail in the known print. Both types are utilized in the criminal justice system


			== Points of Match ==