Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
Aim: In the two-part study, the article from Science about Itiel Dror’s work is summarized, and then in this first part, his studies related to friction ridges are examined in detail, compared to other scientific papers. The most famous false positive identification in the fingerprint field is also covered, and the authors’ experiment is presented.
Methodology: After summarizing the first half of the Science article, the study synthesizes of numerous international papers and some relevant Hungarian articles. The Mayfield case is presented using the lesser-known civil court decision, in addition to the widely studied US government reports. The experiences of the authors’ empirical experiment are summarized at the end of the study.
Findings: The cognitive bias of forensic experts can have a serious impact on the judiciary, yet detailed research on the topic only began after the infamous mistaken identifications around the turn of the millennium. Itiel Dror’s role in this is pioneering and undoubted, although this paper clarifies some of his statements, and discusses them in agreement with other authors. In the infamous Mayfield case, comparing the less well-known documents of the trial initiated by the unlawfully detained lawyer, with the government reports that have been extensively analysed, this paper suggests that the case was not about the cognitive bias of the experts, but rather an attempt to hold a classic conceptual (pre-determined) trial. The authors’ empirical experiment, in agreement with the experiment conducted by the IAI, in contrast to Dror's results, did not support the substantial effect of contextual bias on fingerprint comparison.
Value: The study provides a comprehensive picture of the problem of expert bias through the work of Itiel Dror, and also offers useful solutions to mitigate it.
References
Cole, S. A. (2005). More than zero: Accounting for error in latent fingerprint identification. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95(3), 985–1078.
Cuellar, M., Luby, A. & Mauro, J. (2021). A probabilistic formalization of contextual bias in forensic analysis: Evidence that examiner bias leads to systemic bias in the criminal justice system. CrimRxiv. https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.db951e6a
Czebe, A., Kovács, G. (2015). The impact of bias in latent fingerprint identification. 6th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), (pp. 569–574). https://doi.org/10.1109/CogInfoCom.2015.7390656.
Dror, I. E., Peron, A. E., Hind, S. L. & Charlton, D. (2005) When emotions get the better of us: the effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 799–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1130
Dror, I.E. & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(4), 600–616.
Dror, I. E., Charlton, D. & Peron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017
Dror, I. E. & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 900–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00762.x
Dror, I. E. & Mnookin, J. L. (2010). The use of technology in human expert domains: challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensic science. Law, Probability and Risk, 9(1), 47−67. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgp031
Dror, I.E., Wertheim K., Fraser-Mackenzie P. & Walajtys J. (2012). The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts. Journal of Forensic Science, 57(2), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02013.x
Dror, I. E. & Langenburg, G. (2018) “Cannot decide”: the fine line between appropriate inconclusive determinations versus unjustifiably deciding not to decide. Journal of Forensic Sciences 64(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13854
Dror, I.E. (2020). Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias. Analytical Chemistry, 92(12), 7998–8004. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704
Edmond, G., Tangen, J. M., Searston, R. A. & Dror, I. E. (2015). Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: the corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals. Law, Probability and Risk, 14(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgu018
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E. & Kukuczka, J. (2013): The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
Kovács G. & Czebe A. (2017). Egyes kognitív, emberi tényezők szerepe a szakértőivélemény-alkotásban. Beügyi Szemle, 65(10), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.38146/BSZ.2017.10.7
Kunkler, K. S. & Roy, T. (2023). Reducing the impact of cognitive bias in decision making: Practical actions for forensic science practitioners. Forensic Science International: Synergy 5(7), 100341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100341
Langenburg, G., Champod, C. & Wertheim, P. (2009). Testing for Potential Contextual Bias Effects During the Verification Stage of the ACE-V Methodology when Conducting Fingerprint Comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(3), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01025.x
Langenburg, G. & Champod, C. (2011). The GYRO System – A Recommended Approach to More Transparent Documentation. Journal of Forensic Identification, 61(4), 373–384.
Lynch, M. (2003). God’s signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic science. Endeavour, 27(2), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-9327(03)00068-1
Mnookin, J. L. (2008). The Validity of Latent Fingerprint Identification: Confessions of a Fingerprinting Moderate. Law, Probability and Risk, 7(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/LPR/MGM022
Petrétei D. (2020). Gondolatok a kriminalisztikai azonosításelméletről. Belügyi Szemle 68(2), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.38146/BSZ.2020.2.1
Petrétei, D. (2023). The Siege of the Fingerprint Comparison. In Czenczer, O., Kovács, G. & Mészáros, B. (Eds.), I. Ludovika International Law Enforcement Research Symposium Conference Proceedings. (pp. 165–173). Hungarian Association of Police Science.
Romanek J., Solymosi J. & Tauszik N. (2004). Daktiloszkópia 1904-2004. BM Duna Palota Kiadó.
Stacey, R. B. (2004). A Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case. Journal of Forensic Identification, 54(6), 706–720.
Starr, D. (2022). The Bias Hunter. Itiel Dror is determined to reveal the role of bias in forensics, even if it sparks outrage. Science, 376(6594), 686–690. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adc9480
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Academic Journal of Internal Affairs