The use of biometric evidence in executing criminal justice has gained reputation throughout the world as a result of rapid advancement in technology. In essence, biometric recognition entails the use of biometric equipment to recognize individuals through their biological characteristics (Sanders et al., 2010). Bio information of a person is captured and analyzed for use in identification. Some examples of bio information include fingerprint and signatures. A biometric evidence is the most popular and convincing method of confirming the identity of a person (Reedman, 2015). The criminal justice system uses different biometric characteristics to identify criminals depending on the acceptability of characteristics and reliability.
It is important to consider the general acceptability of the biometric technology by the community. Factors such as cultural, social, and legal implication of biometrics should be given due considerations because they have severe negative social impacts on people (Mnookin, 2007). Biometric recognition techniques have been deployed in various fields. More specifically, this method is widely applied in the criminal justice system. In spite of these successful applications, several drawbacks and challenges tend to reduce their effectiveness. The paper discusses biometric evidence in criminal justice system and the associated challenges and benefits.
Determination and validation of reliability of biometric evidence
The world has become highly networked, and identification of persons is increasingly becoming relevant in various applications such as crossing international borders (Mali and Bhattacharya, 2013). Accurate identification of individuals has become more challenging. Fighting crime continues to be more critical in the modern world, resulting in a serious threat to social, economic, and political human life. The criminal justice systems in many countries have embraced the use of advanced technology, which involves using biometric evidence in the identification of persons.
The biometric systems have been adopted speedily in most parts of the world due to their innumerate benefits. One of the major areas of application of biometric systems is in law enforcement, where biometric characteristics are used to investigate and collect evidence. The first known case of use of the biometric system was in India in 1963, which used fingerprint matching (Trauring, 1963). The United States implemented biometric identification system after an attack by terrorists. This system enhanced security and made border crossing more reliable in the two countries.
After capturing the biometric evidence, it must be validated so that further actions such as court testimony can proceed. However, the reliability of this evidence can be questioned because it relies on how the experts interpret the biometric characteristics. The accuracy of the expert who examines the biometric evidence has often been criticized in the criminal courts, thereby limiting the reliability and validity of the proof.
Reports from the National Research Council of Legal and Forensic Sciences Communities showed that experts’ accuracy in making decisions using fingerprints is sometimes small. The research conducted required experts to compare 100 out of 744 pairs of different fingerprints. The results showed that more than 80% of these experts made errors in identification (National Research Council, 2009). Inaccurate decisions by the person responsible for examining the biometric evidence are thus one of the problems challenging the use of this evidence in the execution of criminal justice.
A similar study to investigate the reliability of experts’ information about biometric outcomes used fingerprints from different people and the experts were required to observe them and identify fingerprints of the same person from a pool of pairs. The results showed high levels of inaccuracy among the experts. Most of them gave contradicting information where different experts identified the same fingerprints with different persons (Mnookin, 2007).
Another challenge facing the use of biometrics relates to erroneous outcomes of the investigations of the terrorist attack in Madrid in 2004 (Jones, 2012). The investigation involved the scrutiny of fingerprints by the FBI. The outcomes showed that bombing was executed by Mayfield, which was later proved wrong. This scenario clearly demonstrates that fingerprint information cannot be 100% reliable.
Cases of false accusations and punishment of innocent people are common in the criminal justice system where inaccurate biometric information is presented to the judges and used to reach decisions (Wertheim, Langenburg, Moenssens, 2006). In some cases, corruption has led to the persecution of innocents and criminals are freed. Fingerprints examiners in these cases give false information about their findings on account of corruption. Thus, the reliability of biometric evidence is challenged due to corrupt experts.
Before the evidence can be allowed in the testimony, the court must assess its reliability and validity. Comparison of various biological characteristics such as hair and fingerprint must be made carefully. Reliability of this evidence depends on the level of expertise of the person involved in its collection. Different professionals must participate in the examination of the presented biometric evidence for validation.
Hair matching is another technique used in identifying criminals. In this case, experts compare some characteristics of hair and establish if there is a match with the accused person. However, there are some challenges with the use of this method. Firstly, there are no established standards to determine how many features should be present for the expert to declare that there is a match. Moreover, studies have shown that hair matching through microscopic analysis does not produce the most reliable results (Jones, 2012).
Role of Frye standard in determining the acceptability of biometric evidence
The acceptability of biometric evidence in a court requires a critical analysis of the evidence. The analysis is then used to declare the admissibility of the evidence or its rejection. The process of analyzing this evidence is quite complicated and is usually faced by confusions. Frye as well as Daubert standards are the two commonly used standards to determine whether or not the judge will accept the scientific evidence.
Frye standard entails tests employed in the criminal justice system in assessing the presented evidence for admissibility (Frye or Daubert, 2009). One of the primary roles of Frye standard is the validation of the evidence. The evidence provided by the expert after the examination of biological characteristics of the accused person is re-examined several times by a team of professionals to prove its validity before it can be allowed for use in the testimony in the court. The Frye standard sets the minimum conditions that biometric evidence must satisfy for it to be considered valid.
The method used to collect the evidence must meet general acceptance in the community according to Frye standard. The community must approve the technique that experts are required to use when collecting evidence. Thus, before the court of law accepts the evidence from the experts, it must ensure that the method use in collecting that evidence is consistent with the requirements of the community.
Reliability is another important aspect of the evidence that Frye standard checks. The biometric evidence presented in the court of law must be reliable in terms of the source, method of collection, and the person involved in its collection. This evidence cannot be used in the court unless the judges are satisfied that the evidence meets the requirements of the Frye standards.
The main challenge with acceptability of biometric evidence in courts is the inadequate training of most judges. Most judges in the courts of law lack the necessary training needed to ascertain the consistency of the biometric evidence with the set standards. Thus, they encounter difficulties when handling the scientific evidence and often admit the wrong evidence.
The federal states ceased to use the Frye standard around 1993 citing that the Frye rule did not address the reliability of evidence presented by experts. The Daubert standard overruled the Frye standard arguing that it was unreliable in determining the acceptability of biometric evidence (Daubert, 1993). The Daubert rule required the trial judges to evaluate the experts’ testimony by acting as gatekeepers.
Comparison between fingerprint evidence and other forms of biometric evidence
The biometric evidence is collected from various biological characteristics of an individual. Some of these features include hair, fingerprints, face, and signature. Biometric identification through fingerprints is the most widely applied in criminal justice system in most countries. Fingerprint identification has dominated the world as a method of identifying criminals since early 1920 (Yeung, 2013). The main reason why fingerprint identification is used in most of the criminal justice system is because there is a high correlation between fingerprints and other parts of the body.
Fingerprints identification proves highly efficient compared to the facial method. In a situation where the criminal justice system wants to distinguish between two identical twins, faces cannot be used because the two are identically similar. For example, the criminal justice system of the United States wanted to distinguish between two African-Americans who resembled each other like twins (Komarinski, 2005). It was only after performing a fingerprint test that they managed to differentiate them.
Hair matching is used in some cases to collect biological details of a person in criminal justice system. However, studies have proved that microscopic analysis to match hair with an individual is not entirely scientific (Jones, 2012). The problem with hair matching is that some features may not be available to establish an accurate match between the hair sample and the individual. Therefore, fingerprint method remains outstanding as the method of collecting scientific evidence.
It is worth noting that fingerprint is not the most robust method of identification though it has wide application. In situations where a person is dead, and the body is completely rotten, fingerprints cannot help in identifying that person unless they were taken and filed before death. The use of DNA outdoes fingerprints in such cases. DNA relates to inherent biological characteristics, and its test can be performed even to dead bodies (Lambert, 1998). In cases involving rape or child dispute, DNA test is the most efficient and helpful way of solving cases.
Challenges associated with use of lower forms of biometrics and acceptance in court
Facial recognition entails the use of computer software to identify a person. Computer software compares the digital images and the face and detects similarities. The program analyzes and measures some points such as nose and cheekbones around the face. This method of identification has developed rapidly throughout the world due to factors like recognition algorithms and existence of the massive facial database. However, several challenges tend to limit the effectiveness of this method.
The evidence from facial recognition cannot be used in a court of law for testimony if it has not been validated. Validation of biometric evidence entails a long process in a team of experts are involved. Thus, it is both costly and time-consuming. Additionally, some judges lack adequate training on the use of modern technology to validate scientific evidence.
Where a criminal case involves an individual who totally resembles another one, facial recognition method may not apply. Thus, criminal justice cannot be executed on the basis of facial recognition. An example is a criminal case where two Africans-Americans were convicted, and they completely looked alike. The American criminal justice system could not differentiate the two until they used fingerprints.
Role of expert witness related to biometric evidence in court
Experts entail professionals who are specifically trained to collect evidence and present it in the courts of law to facilitate execution of justice. They increase knowledge as well as experience needed in the court, thus helping the court in understanding the issues involved in the case. Hence, the justice system can make a sound decision. Additionally, expert witness helps to prepare the evidence to facilitate court proceedings.
Expert witness accepts the responsibility to take care of the client in matters relating to the investigations and to provide sound evidence. Thus, the expert should only take roles which he can perform best based on his competence. Additionally, an expert witness should have enough knowledge concerning court procedure. He should be able to manage time, case, and means to reduce cost.
The admission of expert evidence in court occurs whenever some matters arising in the court require a high level of expertise for scrutiny or analysis. The use of expert witness when they are not very necessary results in delays of court proceedings. As a result, judges sometimes tend to exclude expert witness to avoid these delays.
Benefits of biometric evidence in criminal justice system
Biometric evidence enhances the convenience in the execution of justice in courts of law. The evidence collected from the suspects or accused persons is analyzed using modern technology by experts. Thus, the trial process is completed within a short time. Also, biometric evidence reduces time spent in investigation and trial process (Defense, 2015). The identification of criminals is easy and less time is spent in passing judgments because there are few cases of denying the accusations.
Biometric evidence helps in reducing fraud. Fraudulent activities are few in countries that use biometrics in fighting crime. Once the fingerprints are captured, they are retained in files. As a result, people fear to have criminal record hence the levels of crime reduce drastically. Falsifying digital signatures is difficult because it is encrypted using complex mathematical algorithms. Additionally, biometrics helps in maintaining people’s identities even after they grow old or die.
The evidence captured from biological characteristics assist in managing and improving security. It has been discovered that since the introduction of biometric evidence, criminal activities have reduced substantially (The evolving standards, n.d). The number of cases in the criminal justice system has significantly gone down implying the effectiveness of the use of scientific evidence in reducing the crime rate.
Conclusion
The criminal justice system is very important to the people’s security in any country. Court proceedings rely on the evidence presented by the involved parties. Besides, making sound judgments require material evidence. Biometric evidence entails identification of persons using biological characteristics such as digital signatures and fingerprints. The evidence based on body characteristics facilitates court proceedings by reducing time and costs. It also promotes fair trial and judgment. Biometric evidence has many benefits such as fraud reduction, improving security, and enhancing convenience in the criminal justice system. However, various challenges tend to hamper the effectiveness of biometric evidence. Some of these challenges include the methods of evaluating the reliability of evidence and validation of this evidence. Another critical challenge is determining the best method of collecting evidence and the level of competence of the experts involved. Nevertheless, countries should embrace the application of biometric evidence in their criminal justice systems because they have numerous benefits.
References
Daubert v. Merrell Dow pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (2015). Retrieved April 16, 2016, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/579/case.html
Defense, D. of, & Agency, B. I. M. (2015). National information exchange model electronic Biometric transmission specification information exchange package documentation. United States: Createspace.
Is frye dying or is daubert doomed? Determining the standard of admissibility of scientific evidence in alabama courts. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2051/Issue%202/McLeod.pdf
Jones, J. (2012, April 17). Forensic tools: What’s reliable and what’s not-so-scientific. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/forensic-tools-whats-reliable-and-whats-not-so-scientific/
Komarinski, P. (2005). Automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS). Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic.
Lambert, B. (1998, December 17). Giuliani backs DNA testing of newborns for identification. N.Y. / Region. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/17/nyregion/giuliani-backs-dna-testing-of-newborns-for-identification.html
Mali, K. and Bhattacharya, S. (2013). Comparative study of different Biometric features. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 2(7).
Mnookin, J. L. (2007). The validity of latent fingerprint identification: Confessions of a fingerprinting moderate. Law, Probability and Risk, 7(2), 127–141.
National Research Council (2009) Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
Reedman, C. and Elliott, S. (2015) Biometrics in the criminal justice system. United States: Prentice Hall
Sanders, A., Young, R., Burton, M., S, A., ers, R.Y. and Burton, Y. (2010) Criminal justice. 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, USA
The evolving standards of Admissibility of scientific evidence. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/walsh.html
Trauring, M. (1963). On the Automatic Comparison of Finger Ridge Patterns. Nature 197 (1963), 938- 940.
Yeung, B. (2013). The future of Techno Crimefighting. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2011-02-techno-crimefightin
Wertheim K, Langenburg G, Moenssens A (2006) A report of latent print examiner accuracy during comparison training exercises. J Forensic Identification 56, 55–93.
.
.
.
