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 cone, 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 lavaВ»year in Oregon was jailed for TVВ»’0 weeks when his prints were incorrectly matched with those found at a site of 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 their evidences of fingerprints are available, it narrows the case down much more, and makes it easier on them to come to a conclusion. A second factor leads to the DNA DNA is already set, and it’s unable to be changed. Since the jurors have at least one DNA point, which is the main evidence, they do not need to worry about the statistics. Depending on who is presenting the evidence, it’s unfair for those who understand more principles than of people who do not.