Fingerprinting vs. DNA – Which One Would You Use? Fingerprinting has a relatively long history in the forensic world of criminal justice. DNA evidence is comparatively new. Is one more accurate and useful in identifying criminals and bringing them to justice? Fingerprinting Takes the Early Lead Systematic fingerprint records began in Argentina in 1891. Shortly after that, Edward Richard Henry, an English fingerprint expert working in India, developed a fingerprint classification system, which was used until computers made it obsolete in the late 20th century. Fingerprint identification has historically been the most trusted type of forensic evidence in criminal proceedings. But there has been some controversy: alleged fingerprint matches have been proven wrong after innocent men went to prison. The first cracks in fingerprinting's veneer of infallibility came when tests revealed a substantial margin of error, including false positive fingerprint identification. We have since become more critical of the opinions of fingerprint experts. In fact, since 2002, a federal judge ruled that fingerprint witnesses can no longer tell juries that two fingerprints are a "definite match." In criminal trials, it is now often the competence of each fingerprint examiner and the uneven nature of fingerprint recognition that are put on trial by defense attorneys.  In Defense of Fingerprints However, fingerprinting is still the single most cost-effective and reliable way to identify people: - Fingerprinting has been used for over 100 years to provide accurate identification of criminals.
- Fingerprinting has the most extensive database for identifying people, with tens of thousands of prints added to fingerprint databases every year.
- No two fingerprints have ever been identical in the many millions of comparisons.
- Fingerprints solve ten times more unknown-suspect cases than DNA.
DNA: Catch Me If You Can DNA identification is based upon the genetic uniqueness of each individual (except between identical twins). It has become an indispensable tool in fighting crime because it provides unambiguous identification of a criminal from miniscule traces of biological material left at a crime scene. As with fingerprints, though, in the absence of other evidence, an exact DNA match does not amount to proof of guilt. Since it was introduced in 1985, the achievements of DNA testing are impressive. In this short time, DNA evidence has accomplished the following: - Solved crimes considered otherwise unsolvable
- Put thousands of rapists and killers in jail
- Identified the remains of unidentified bodies
- Established paternity in countless cases
- Absolved wrongly accused individuals
Prosecutors in the US submit approximately 10,000 biological samples for DNA testing every year. About 30 percent come back eliminating the prime suspect. Most of the rest result in guilty pleas. In its short history, DNA has undergone greater scrutiny than any other method of criminal investigation, including ballistics, handwriting, lie detection, eyewitnesses and fingerprinting. The scientific foundations of DNA evidence are unassailable. The only possible weakness in DNA identification comes from human error: breaks in the chain of custody, mistakes in the lab or tampering with evidence. A great amount of effort goes into preventing these problems, both in criminal justice programs and in forensic labs. DNA is truly the forensic tool of the future. The Drawbacks of DNA There are some problems with DNA testing, though: -
Expense Some DNA tests are relatively inexpensive. You can take a paternity test for $80. But for a DNA test to be admissible in court, the price skyrockets to $500 to $600. This becomes expensive if it must be done on multiple suspects. -
Backlog Despite tens of millions of dollar in federal grants, there is still a significant backlog in the number of DNA tests waiting to be processed. In fact, an audit issued by the city of Los Angeles claimed that at least 7,000 DNA rape tests remain untouched by the police department's crime lab. The FBI has fallen behind in processing DNA from nearly 200,000 convicted criminals—85 percent of all samples it has collected since 2001. -
Tampering With Evidence Finally we can never discount the role of negligent or ill-meaning people in the lab or in the criminal justice system itself. But this criticism is true for any form of identification and is not unique to DNA analysis. Although there is some criticism of DNA evidence, the future looks bright for this forensic breakthrough. Endgame: DNA or Fingerprinting? The struggle between DNA and fingerprinting for dominance in the criminal justice world is not over. Fingerprints are still the front-line evidence at crime scenes and at trial. With the breadth and depth of existing fingerprint databases, this form of evidence will remain with us for some time, even if examiners must now testify that they have only found a "likely match." The new science of DNA fingerprinting is in its infancy and will continue to evolve. It is used by both prosecution and defense lawyers, to solve cold cases and exonerate the innocent. As technology changes, it will surely continue to be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence in an effort to develop the best form of human identification and help our police officers and federal agents bring criminals to justice.  Related Article: Sources: Blood Evidence: How DNA is Revolutionizing the Way We Solve Crimes,
Science 101: Forensics,
The Science of Sherlock Holmes,
the-freedomproject.org,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10mon2.html,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-03-dnabacklog_N.htm Criminal Justice Home
Paralegal Articles & Resources | Find Criminal Justice Schools |
