FINGERPRINTS ANATOMY

Being accused of something you didn’t do is not only unfair, but also injustice. Although fingerprints are crucial evidence and data of a case, it’s not the only piece of information available. While trying someone for a case, it’s only lawful if the jurors understand the process and basic principles of the technique. However, the system of unskilled jurors can be improved. These days, fingerprinting people seems pretty cunning. With a DNA database, fingerprints seem like a reliable source. For example, if a homicide were to occur and investigators found five peoples difference fingerprints close to the scene, unskilled jurors may think the prints are associated with the crime, and accuse all five people guilty. The jurors would need more evidence to actually, by law, accuse a person, or people guilty of a crime, rather than just finger prints.
Furthermore, fingerprints can also be unreliable. In 1998 a Massachusetts man was convicted of a murder he didn't commit based on prints that were incorrectly matched. He spent six years in prison before being able to be released. In 2004, a lawyer in Oregon was jailed for two weeks when his prints were incorrectly matched with those found at a site of a train bombing in Madrid. Moreover, it is somewhat rare for a completely un-smudged print to be found. The blurring of a smudge leaves a lot of guesswork, which gets tricky when labs confirm from the results. There's also the problem of certification, but many labs don't require it. The average print recovered from a crime scene is roughly twenty percent of a finger. This can lead to the prosecutor explaining to the jurors, and since the jurors do not understand many terms due to their lack of training, they are able to agree with them. In addition, the jurors will be biased in their conclusions because of their inexperience, with just going with their instinct instead of facts.
One opposing viewpoint is that the jurors do have many pieces of data to go through, and
since