Are Fingerprints Classed As Biological Evidence?

Due to the significance of biological evidence in criminal investigations, it is essential that the examples of biological evidence used are valid and trustworthy. Although fingerprint ridges are distinct, the general shape of a fingerprint can be quite similar. When fingerprints are used as biological evidence at crime scenes, they frequently lose their detail.

Therefore, can we confidently base judicial decisions on less-than-perfect information? Well, not exactly, but they’re still a form of physical evidence which is often present at a crime scene.

Are Fingerprints Classed As Biological Evidence?

Yes they are, although even if a full, complete fingerprint was lifted from a crime scene and the print could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to belong to a suspect, the fingerprint alone does not indicate that the suspect committed the crime. It only proves that he or she was present in that location at some point, possibly days or weeks before the crime was committed, and therefore cannot be solely used to determine who the perpetrator is.

Several reliable sources also have the same verdict about the above, with the School Of Social Ecology stating the following: “Latent fingerprints, which are collected from crime scenes, have been used as courtroom evidence for decades. But there is little certainty that a set of fingerprints can reliably point to the right person, according to the report. Inaccurate findings can lead to false convictions.”

With that being said, although this kind of forensic evidence cannot indicate that a person is guilty of a crime, it is an essential type of evidence found at a crime scene, which alongside other evidence can be used to inform the overall case. Other forms of biological evidence such as hair, DNA (semen, fluid), and similar biological matter can be analyzed at a forensic laboratory by a specialist technician, and lead to more conclusive evidence.

Leave a Comment