The New Methods of Criminal Identification: Intrusive or Helpful?

In modern society we are faced with the difficulty of ensuring that we are not locking up innocent people. We as a society want to fight crime at any means necessary but at what cost are we willing to pay for this so called justice? In this paper I will discuss the ways that we use criminal identification. Some of these methods are very simple as well as those, which are quite complex. These are eyewitness identification, DNA fingerprinting, latent prints found on bodies, brain fingerprinting, and ThruVision.

Eyewitness identification

The first method of criminal identification that I will be discussing is probably one of the most common methods. It is eyewitness identification. Eyewitness identification is commonly used within the policing system. The way that it is used is quite simple. In many cases there is a lineup. A line up is when the alleged victim points out the alleged perpetrator. For instance, a bank teller pointing out a bank robber would be an example of using a lineup.

The process of criminal identification does not end there. There are still the court proceedings that follow. Then it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged criminal is guilty. It is not as easy as pointing the person out and having them sentenced to prison indefinitely. That is because everyone in this country is entitled to due process. So if it is proven that the person from the lineup is actually guilty of the crime, and after their days in court and sentencing what if they are innocent? What can be done to prove this? It is not unheard of in this day and age to have a case of mistaken identity. There are things that can help to prove a person’s innocence. One of the methods is DNA.

DNA Fingerprinting

DNA is short for the term deoxyribonucleic acid. According to the definition of DNA, it is defined as the “molecules inside cells that carry genetic information and pass it from one generation to the next.” DNA is commonly used in DNA fingerprinting. DNA fingerprinting uses the biological residue, which is commonly found at the crime scene for a genetic comparison which, helps to determine the identity of criminal suspects. DNA is an important method of criminal investigation that is commonly used.

The way that DNA works is by using the sample of blood, hair, semen, saliva, or small flakes of skin which may be left at the scene of the crime. When investigating a rape case, the semen or pubic hairs, which may be left behind, can be removed from the victim or from the scene and can be used to identify the suspect. In a murder case, the chance that the victims fight their attackers may retain small amounts of the perpetrator’s skin under their nails, which can be used as a tissue sample in the DNA process. The results of DNA appear like bar codes on film negatives. An expert analyst is needed to read these results which can “exonerate” a suspect as well as provide “irrefutable” guilt.

A non-profit project called the “Innocence Project” is a prime example of how effective the results of DNA fingerprinting can be. The Innocence Project is a legal clinic, which primarily deals with DNA cases to prove the innocence of those who have been wrongly imprisoned. The law students handle the cases while receiving intensive on the job training. “They are supervised by a team of lawyers, paid staff members, and pro-bono volunteers.” The Innocence Project has freed “144 inmates on the basis of DNA evidence.”

One of the cases that the Innocence Project was responsible for freeing an innocent man was the case of Stephen Cowans. Mr. Cowans had served six years in prison for armed robbery, and shooting a police officer. When the DNA test results came back it was proven that Mr. Cowans was in fact innocent. The set of fingerprints that had sent Mr. Cowans to prison to begin with was in fact proven not to be his. The law student Ms. Cadman who worked on the case to free Mr. Cowans said ” It showed me how important it is that the criminal justice system be fair and accurate.”

Latent Fingerprinting

The next method that I will be discussing is latent prints. Latent prints are classified into three categories: porous, non-porous and borderline or questionable. Porous evidence is a thing such as “paper, unfinished wood, and cardboard.” The reason that these are porous is because the fingerprints will actually soak into the surface. Non-porous surfaces are things such as “glass, plastic, metal, and foil.” These types of items are far more delicate when trying to remove the prints. The reason is that the fingerprints may be residing on the surface and could be easily wiped away. Borderline and questionable surfaces could be things such as “shiny magazine covers” or things that you aren’t sure if water would be able to soak into the surface. These types of items need to be cared for with great caution so that the evidence of fingerprints is not destroyed. When investigators are trying to preserve the latent prints, they wear gloves when handling the evidence. They wear them to keep their hands clean. The reason that they do this is because if the smooth area of the gloves touch the evidence they will destroy the evidence. Investigators should primarily wear cloth gloves because of this very reason.

Investigators were not always able to lift the latent prints from objects. The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) did extensive research in the Laboratory’s Latent Fingerprint Section. It is said that latent fingerprints can be lifted if the investigators are in fact willing to try. The research for latent fingerprinting began in the early 1970’s. They began practicing on cadavers, which had been embalmed. After more research they realized that they had the best results with bodies that had not been embalmed.

They use a complex process known as “glue fuming.” This process entails placing the item to be checked for prints inside of an airtight container and then it is heated. Cyanoacrylate is added to the airtight container, it evaporates and is circulated throughout the container by fans. The gaseous glue reacts with materials that may have been left behind in fingerprints such as amino acids and glucose, which makes the prints visible.

The glue fuming is critical because if this part is not done correctly the powder is useless. The type of powder that is preferred by most scientists is black magnetic powder. It produces the best prints and costs less than fluorescent powders. Black magnetic powder also does not require special photographic skills.

Latent prints can be used whenever investigators believe that the alleged perpetrator has touched the victim. In most cases the body should be examined for prints at the scene. This is of course after the coroner has done his/her examination of the body and given their permission. The reason that the prints are so important to be done at the scene is the fear that the prints will be removed when the body is moved. This is now possible because of the mobility of the portable glue-fuming device.

Brain Fingerprinting

The next form of identification technology that I will be discussing is brain fingerprinting. It may seem that this is a polygraph of the mind in an entirely new sense. This is a relatively new form of criminal identification and is not currently widespread. It is geared towards fighting crime and terrorism. Brain fingerprinting is a device that uses a headband with sensors to measure the person’s brain waves. The idea of this is to “help the authorities determine the truth by detecting the information stored in the brain.”

While this idea may seem far-fetched, The Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories of Seattle are trying to open a training center in Colorado, which would employ 300 people. The laboratory’s idea has not been widely used or has not been yet accepted as the DNA test has. While that is of course their hope, it may be quite sometime before the scientific community, as well as the legal community officially accept it.

The brain device has been used in a case in 2000, in which the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the case in 2003. The man had been convicted of murder in 1977, but the device showed that the man’s brain did not hold the mens rea of the crime in question. It was noted that his alibi matched with his side of the story. However it should be known that the prosecutors had withheld evidence from the police. The evidence in this case was important because it pointed to another suspect.

It may seem as if this was a blessing for the man who was wrongfully convicted but there is still the concern that there may be a way to trick the device and the wrong person could be released from incarceration. As with any device it will require extensive testing before it can be deemed accurate or not. The truth is that even polygraphs are not admissible in most courts. Only time will be able to tell if this will end up on the same level as a polygraph.

Brain fingerprinting is also criticized by those who wonder what would happen if people who forget the details of the crime over an extended period of time are tested. They also don’t feel that it would be effective if a person is inebriated or intoxicated with illegal substances at the time of the crime. The theory and the validity of Brain Fingerprinting are at this time known as “questionable”.

ThruVision

The last criminal identification I will be discussing is a device known as ThruVision. This is a particularly interesting idea. It is also a very new idea. It originates from the United Kingdom. It has won the top prize by the Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury. Dr. Jonathon James is the developer of ThruVision. ThruVision is a “terahertz imaging system for detecting concealed objects.”

ThruVision is able to see through clothing as well as concealed body armor. You may be curious as to what can it see? It can see guns, explosives, metallic and non-metallic objects. James reasoning for the invention of the prototype was that he felt the security at the airports was “not working adequately.” He also mentions that the modern day security systems only detect “metal objects.” With the current terrorist threats and fears within the world, this is a way that we can detect the presence of explosives. The demand is high now for a product that will ensure that passengers are going to be safe while traveling by plane.

In conclusion, we live in a society that we do the best we can to ensure safety among the masses. This is of course a very difficult job because there are no simple answers. Even with a process as simple as a lineup, we risk incarcerating the wrong person. When the people within the system make these mistakes, it tarnishes the reputation of the system. It is far easier to remember the wrong that someone has done as opposed to the good that they have done.

DNA, has been one of the most effective means of overturning a sentence for a person who was wrongly sentenced. It is so effective because it has such a diminutive allowance for error. It is very black and white, guilty or not guilty. Fortunately for those who have been sentenced in error, DNA has become a truly prevalent method over the past 6 years. It was introduced for the first time in court in the case of Florida v. Tommy Lee Andrews. Since January of 1989 the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) has allowed casework from the state forensic labs. “DNA is currently used in at least one jurisdiction in about two-thirds of the states.”

Latent Prints have not always been a method that investigators were able to use. This is a method along with DNA testing that can solve crimes that have previously been unsolved. This is not considered to be an invasion of privacy especially in the case of murder. The person is already deceased therefore the issue of privacy is not at stake as much as if the person were alive. Latent Prints have progressed a long way and will continue to do so with the demand for the newest technologies in fighting crime.

Brain Fingerprinting is a new method and has not been tested enough to show significant results or statistics. It may be beneficial in the future to detectives and other authorities trying to solve crimes. As for now, it is still in the testing phase and is criticized by the science community. This may turn out to be just as the polygraph did, that it will not be admissible in most courts, or it may turn out to be completely opposite.

ThruVision is the final identification process. I think that this is truly an innovative idea that could be extremely beneficial to the aviation business. This is an idea that is geared towards the future of protection against crime as well as terrorism. The thought that we would be able to see through protective armor is a great idea that will do more good than harm. The loss of privacy with an issue like this is to be expected. The reasoning is because when you fly you are expecting far less privacy, than you would in your own home, just as you would if you were driving a vehicle.

Overall, my personal assumption is that we are on the right track to protecting ourselves against people who would try to cause us harm.

References:

Brain Fingerprinting: Biotech Week 5/19/2004, p89, 2p from: EBSCO Host, University of Phoenix Collection, 24, July 2004. Path: Search: Accession Number: 13096841, add Brain Fingerprinting to the search
DNA definition retrieved July 24, 2004 from: http://www.phoenix5.org/glossary/DNA.html

Futrell, I.R., Hidden Evidence: Latent Prints on Human Skin: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin: (1996) (65) (4). P21, 3bw. From: EBSCO Host, University of Phoenix Collection, 24, July 2004. Path: Search: Accession Number: 9604242178 add Fingerprints to the search

Imaging system may tighten airport security. Professional Engineering, (2004), Vol. 17 Issue 5, p46, from EBSCO Host on the University of Phoenix Collection, 24,July 2004. Path: Search: AN#: 12598023, Add: Making the face fit the crime to the search

Latent Print Evidence Collection Guidance retrieved July 24, 2004 from:
http://onin.com/fp/lpcollection.html

Mangan, K.S. (2004) Not guilty after all. Chronicle of Higher education; (50) (40), from EBSCO Host, University of Phoenix Collection, 24, July 2004. Path: Search: ISN#00095982, add DNA Fingerprinting to search.

Schmallger, F. (2002) Criminology Today: An Integrative Introduction (3rd ed). Pearson Education
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

The DNA Fingerprint and Criminal Evidence, retrieved July 24, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://ep.llnl.gov/bep/socsci/11/tEvi.html

Zalman, M (2002). Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society (3rd. ed). Pearson Education
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

.

Footnotes
1 Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society

2 Www.Phoenix5.org

3.Criminology Today, An Integrative Introduction

4. Criminology Today, An Integrative Introduction

5. Not Guilty After All, Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 50 Issue 40

6.Not Guilty After All, Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 50 Issue 40

7. Latent Print Evidence Collection Guidance

8. Latent Print Evidence Collection Guidance

9. Cyanoacrylate is often known as the super glue method.

10. Hidden Evidence: Latent Prints on Human Skin

11.Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories: Promoter of “brain fingerprinting” considers Colorado for training.-Biotech weekly, 2004

12. Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories: Promoter of “brain fingerprinting” considers Colorado for training.-Biotech weekly, 2004

13. Professional Engineering: Imaging system may tighten airport security

14.Professional Engineering: Imaging system may tighten airport security

15.The DNA Fingerprint and Criminal Evidence

16.The DNA Fingerprint and Criminal Evidence