Ethics and Justice in the War on Terror

[Tiassa]

The story so far . . . .

For those who missed the tale of Brandon Mayfield, the FBI arrested the Portland lawyer after making a positive match on a partial fingerprint recovered in the investigation into the Madrid bombings in March, 2004.

They had the wrong man. The print belonged to an Algerian known terror suspect. (See Washington Post for more info.)

Jennifer Mnookin wrote, in an opinion piece today:

Three highly skilled FBI fingerprint experts declared this year that Oregon lawyer Brandon Mayfield's fingerprint matched a partial print found on a bag in Madrid that contained explosive detonators. U.S. officials called it "absolutely incontrovertible" and a "bingo match." Mayfield was promptly taken into custody as a material witness. Last week the FBI admitted that it goofed; the print actually belongs to Ouhnane Daoud, an Algerian . . . .

. . . . Our current approach to fingerprint evidence, in which experts claim 100 percent confidence in any match, is dangerously flawed and risks causing miscarriages of justice.

In Mayfield's case, the FBI located 15 points of similarity, places where the particular ridge characteristics of two prints "matched." Even the Spanish authorities, though doubtful about the match, identified eight points of similarity. While many American examiners no longer exclusively count points, experts have declared positive fingerprint matches in court after finding even fewer than eight points.

Different examiners and jurisdictions set their own standards, and the courts in the United States have left the definition of a match up to the experts themselves. Though defense attorneys have in recent years mounted challenges in court to the reliability of fingerprinting, judges have largely turned a deaf ear. What happened to Mayfield should encourage them to listen more closely.

Fingerprinting, unlike DNA evidence, currently lacks any valid statistical foundation. This is gravely troubling. Even if we assume the unproven hypothesis that each fingerprint is unique when examined at a certain level of detail, the important question is how often two people might have fingerprints sufficiently similar that a competent examiner could believe they came from the same person. (Washington Post)

(Boldfaced accents by me.)

In addition to the political embarrassment such an episode might cause, what does it say of fingerprints and justice in general? We have between 8 and 15 matches in a known case of mistaken identity; I wonder how many people have been convicted over the years on less than eight matching points.

(I'm not even prepared to conceive of the magnitude of race-politik that could rise out of this; what happens if blacks are convicted on bad fingerprint evidence more than whites? Rather, I don't think that statistic is reasonably attainable. But still, it's a bit of a chilling consideration.)
____________________

Works Cited:

• Mnookin, Jennifer. "The Achilles' Heel of Fingerprints." Washington Post, May 28, 2004; page A27. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64711-2004May28.html

See Also:

• Schmidt, Susan and Blaine Harden. "Lawyer Is Cleared Of Ties to Bombings." Washington Post, May 25, 2004; page A02. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53196-2004May24.html

 

[Bells]

I could never understand how prosecutors and the courts in general have relied so much on fingerprint evidence. The fact of the matter is that it is true that many people can have over 10 points of similarities in their finger prints. I have read so many cases where people were convicted on less than 8 points, and many of them partial prints. The partial prints always have me feeling very uncomfortable because of the fact that so many people could share that similarity. While there is usually other evidence on hand to convict the individual, cases which rely solely on fingerprints should be shaky at best. Unfortunately this is not always the case. I pray for any case where the defence barrister provides other prints to an expert in court showing that other individuals also have a match to the partial prints used as evidence in court.

The sad fact of the matter is that the law, criminal law especially, is not about justice or about finding out the truth. It is about getting the conviction for the prosecution and a dismissal, acquital or lesser sentence for the defence. Sadder still is that many if not most cases are pleaded out before they get to trial due to the prosecution having finger print evidence and the defence advises their client to take the plead and the deal offered of a lesser sentence based on such evidence. On many occasions I have seen teenagers admitting to the crime even though they may very well not have committed the crime because of some partial print lifted off at the scene which may point to the teen in question. The defence and the prosecution then work together to get the individual to accept the deal offered so that they get out of jail when they still have a life left. The prosecution then goes home happy that they won their case and the defence sleeps happily knowing that they got their client a lesser sentence.

In this day and age where DNA evidence is so much more efficient and effective, I am disgusted that fingerprint evidence is still relied upon to such an extent. And now with the law on terror, where the State has the right to hold a suspect in custody for any desired length of time, to rely on something such as fingerprints makes it doubly dangerous. Fingerprint evidence is used as a bargaining tool to try to make the suspect confess. And such a tool in such times makes it more dangerous.