Customer Reviews

Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I looked forward to this book with much anticipation...perhaps too much, as I ended up being almost thoroughly disappointed.

First, let me say that Cole's research is by no means on the "cutting edge." Anyone who has done an extensive amount of reading or thinking on the subject of fingerprints should come to the simple conclusion that we do not currently have any way to back up the claim that no two prints are alike. Sure, in the off chance that we find two matching prints one day, the theory will be laid to rest - but without physical proof, theoretical proof cannot be created (in other words, there is no true mathematical or theoretical way to prove or disprove the theory of fingerprints). Some would say that the basis of a scientific theory is that it can be theoretically proven or disproven - hence, fingerprinting is not scientific. All I have to say to that is .... Duh. People have debated that point for dozens of years now.

One could give Cole a little credit for bringing up some lesser known but interesting points - eg, the origin of fingerprinting in Western society as a method to further segregate and identify social undesirables (an offshoot of methods based on race, class, mental health, etc.) But, still, this is not really anything new to those that have read the literature.

Additionally, he tends to make broad claims about what certain evidence means without bothering to back up his statements. More than any other of the techniques employed in the book, I found this the most frustrating of all...especially when he had just made a rather interesting and provocative statement, but which I was then unable to follow up on (either through a reference or a thorough logical argument on his part).

A friend of mine suggested that perhaps my criticism is too harsh, considering that this book is most likely his dissertation and thus not as polished as a 2nd or 3rd book. I don't feel like this is an excuse for lazy or sloppy work, however, and so I can only give this book a mediocre rating at best.

The book gives a historical overview of fingerprinting and why anthropometry was more inefficient for the police in the beginning of the 20th century. It furthermore is somewhat critical on the conclusions that are drawn in this field, and the limitations that exist. Also it discusses possibilities that suspects are not found in the database of fingerprints whereas the fingerprints are actually in it.

We see that more discussion on the use of fingerprints as evidence is available on the Internet, in literature and in court. It is always good to remain critical and in this way the book helps in the discussion. In my opinion more scientific research is needed in this field, which can help to have a good overview of limitations and acceptable use. The large finger print databases that exist certainly help to do more research

As is not often enough the case with academic writing, Simon Cole's book is at the very cutting edge of his discipline. Not two weeks ago, a court in Pennsylvania, after hearing testimony from Dr. Cole, held that fingerprint examiners would not be allowed to testify that a fingerprint from the crime scene "matches" that of the defendant. Calling fingerprint identification techniques subjective and scientifically unreliable, Judge Pollack raised the bar for fingerprint examiners. Simon Cole's fascinating book begins by discussing the history of criminal identification techniques, exploring both the scientific and sociological mores that influenced the development of these techniques. The book then analyzes, in detail, the science of fingerprint examination and identifies the many flaws and inconsistencies in its current application around the world. Suspect Identities puts the recent developments in our criminal justice system into perspective and provides the only source for this information. No other book on this topic provides such a clear, comprehensive and accurate accounting of both the history and the current state of fingerprint identification techniques.

Cole makes some good points along the way. It is unfortunate that fingerprint examiners in law enforcement rested on their laurels and let their work be divorced from the biological research that provides a very sound scientific basis for for fingerprint identification. It's also shameful that a *very few* erroneous or dishonest identifications have occurred as in the Shirley McKie case. HOWEVER, there are facts he doesn't mention. Thousands of "partial" latent prints have been searched against millions of records and never found to be identical to more than one person. There's an enormous amount of minute detail in a fingerprint that is completely randomly determined in utero. Identical twins' prints are probably the most scrutinized of all because of the test they pose for the uniqueness of fingerprints; they are ALWAYS different, even though their DNA is identical. By all means, if you are accused of a crime and there is fingerprint evidence, make sure there was no error or wrongdoing by the examiner. That's your right. But Simon Cole is not telling you all the facts. I find it especially galling that he implies fingerprinting is racist; in the culture of 100 years ago in which fingerprinting arose, virtually all institutions were tainted by racism. Like many sciences, it is only as good in practice as the people doing it.

Simon Cole makes good points, BUT it is important to note that he is a polemicist and not a fingerprint expert.

Cole was to give evidence in the People v. James Hyatt (Oct 2001), before Honorable Michael J. Brennan, Supreme Court of the State of New York. The judge conducted a pre trial Frye hearing on the issue and concluded that Dr. Cole's evidence would not be permitted since it constitutes "junk science."

"Upon cross examination Dr. Cole conceded he is not a scientist in the traditional sense of the word but a historian and a social scientist. He also indicated he had not examined the actual fingerprints in this case and was aware a latent print examiner hired by the defense had examined such prints and found a match. Dr. Cole testified that he is not qualified to give an opinion on a fingerprint comparison and that his knowledge as to how latent fingerprints are examined and compared is minimal and obtained from professional literature. Dr. Cole conceded that his theories haven't been sufficiently tested to know whether they could be considered science but rather his opinion is based on scholarly research. Finally Dr. Cole admitted he has never been accepted as an expert in this area in either the State or Federal Courts and that his views were not generally accepted in the mainstream scientific community."

"After Dr. Cole's testimony the Court took judicial notice that fingerprint identification has long been recognized and accepted by all courts in the United States and that expert testimony concerning its use is always admissible provided the proffered witness is indeed qualified as an expert in the field."

even one mistake in fingerprint verification shows that it is
not justified to take fingerprints identification as absolute, which is how it is currently taken in the legal world. thus, the shirley mckie case and the other misconduct cases deserve to be highlighted. in the book, on page 281, the author mentions proficiency tests on fingerprint laboratories. in 1998, 15 percent of 91 participants made false positive identifications.
i think this shows the need for fingerprint identification to be verified, when dealing with an individual case, by independent examiners. i grant that fingerprints seem to be always different from person to person, but this is hardly the point. the point is whether the examiners will determine the fingerprints to be different. i found the book to be extremely interesting.

This well written journey around the globe and into history helps us to grasp criminal identification as the complex result of social and technical evolutions. As increasing geographical and social mobility reduces personalized social control, technical means of identification develop and contribute to more and more institutionalized social control. Besides the initial anthropometric and nowadays' DNA identification, Cole mainly studies fingerprinting. It is here that my attention was most captured by some astounding flaws: Even though strong evidence shows that no two single human fingerprints are identical, this has never been scientifically proven. There is not even a consensus on the minimum requirements for attributing two fingerprints to the same individual. As a varying but often substantial proportion of fingerprint examiners have been found to be either incompetent or corrupt, the reliability of fingerprint identification seems to be much more relative than one may have thought. If Cole (Ph. D. in Science and Technology Studies from Cornell University) thus shakes established beliefs, he often stays somewhat descriptive, more conveying than argueing a critical stance. This is reflected in the bibliography (which is not separated from the references): truely large, mainly English and French, its many historical and technical titles leave limited room for more theoretical studies.

I found this book to be a lively, fascinating history. The story of the search for a "scientific" method of indentification is full of suspect characters and creepy details that are almost too strange to be true. It's very disturbing to think that our jails are full of people who were locked up on the basis of junk science. Every juror who is asked to convict someone on the basis of fingerprint evidence should have to read this book first.

Judge Pollak vacated and superseded the January 2002 opinion cited by another reviewer. Two U.S. Courts of Appeals have since held fingerprint evidence admissible. U. S. v. Mitchell, 365 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 3004) and U.S. v. Crisp, 324 F.3d 261 (4th Cir. 2003). The Mitchell court rejected Cole's view that fingerprint evidence is not admissible under U.S. Supreme Court criteria for the admission of scientific opinion evidence.