FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3122326876> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3122326876 endingPage "219" @default.
• W3122326876 startingPage "199" @default.
• W3122326876 abstract "Forensic scientists across a broad array of sub-specialties have long maintained that they can link an unknown mark (e.g., a partial fingerprint or tireprint) to a unique source. Yet no scientific basis exists for this assertion, which is sustained largely by a faulty probabilistic intuition equating infrequency with uniqueness. This Essay traces the origins of the individualization claim and explicates the various failed lines of evidence and argument offered in its support. We conclude with suggestions for improving the scientific bases of the forensic identification sciences. I. FOREWORD: THE TWO STEPS IN FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION Forensic identification science involves two fundamental steps. The first step is to compare a questioned item of evidence to an exemplar from a known source and judge whether they appear so alike that they can be said to match. The second step is to assess the meaning of that reported match: What is the probability that the questioned and the known originated from the same source?1 Different risks of error are present at each step. The risk of error in the first step is that a reported between a questioned and a known sample might not really match. Even if the method used to compare questioned and known samples were flawless, an error could occur if, for example, one of the samples had been mislabeled or mixed up with a different sample. The risk of error associated with the second step is that, while accurate, the reported may have arisen through coincidence and not because the samples share a common source. The risks of error at both steps affect the ultimate inferences that can be drawn about the identification evidence in a case.2 Both risks are subjects of far too little research. As to the first step, existing standards and procedures do not provide sufficient protection from erroneous conclusions that two marks are indistinguishably alike-that is, that they match when in fact they differ. Few, if any, criminalistics subfields have objective standards for deciding whether two patterns match. That determination is left to the judgment of each examiner. For example, consider David Stoney's discussion of fingerprint examination standards: How much correspondence between two fingerprints is sufficient to conclude that they [are the same pattern] ... ? An adequate answer ... is not currently available. The best answer at present... is that this is up to the individual expert fingerprint examiner to determine, based on that examiner's training, skill, and experience. Thus, we have an ill-defined, flexible, and explicitly subjective criterion for establishing fingerprint identification .... Any unbiased, intelligent assessment of fingerprint identification practices today reveals that there are, in reality, no standards.3 The lack of objective standards helps explain the disturbing findings from the small body of research that has been conducted on pattern matching by forensic scientists. In some tests, examiners disagreed with one another about whether various images matched.4 In others, examiners who agreed that two patterns matched disagreed (sometimes dramatically) on what constituted the match.5 Examiners differ not only in their ability to perceive pattern similarity, but also in their thresholds for declaring matches.6 Other research suggests that the judgments of experienced criminalists are influenced by extraneous information. A study by Itel Dror et al. found that four of five fingerprint experts who previously had identified two prints as a reached different conclusions on a later examination, after they learned that the prints were from different persons.7 In a follow-up study, six other fingerprint experts were provided with eight pairs of prints that they previously had judged.8 The study found that introduction of contextual information induced four of the six experts to change at least one of their previous judgments. …" @default.
• W3122326876 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3122326876 creator A5060068183 @default.
• W3122326876 creator A5079845352 @default.
• W3122326876 date "2008-01-01" @default.
• W3122326876 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W3122326876 title "The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence" @default.
• W3122326876 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W3122326876 type Work @default.
• W3122326876 sameAs 3122326876 @default.
• W3122326876 citedByCount "34" @default.
• W3122326876 countsByYear W31223268762012 @default.
• W3122326876 countsByYear W31223268762013 @default.
• W3122326876 countsByYear W31223268762014 @default.
• W3122326876 countsByYear W31223268762015 @default.
• W3122326876 countsByYear W31223268762017 @default.
• W3122326876 countsByYear W31223268762018 @default.
• W3122326876 countsByYear W31223268762019 @default.
• W3122326876 countsByYear W31223268762020 @default.
• W3122326876 countsByYear W31223268762021 @default.
• W3122326876 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3122326876 hasAuthorship W3122326876A5060068183 @default.
• W3122326876 hasAuthorship W3122326876A5079845352 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C116834253 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C132010649 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C140505726 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C2781035248 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C40422974 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C97256817 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C105795698 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C111472728 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C116834253 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C132010649 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C138885662 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C140505726 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C15744967 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C166957645 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C185592680 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C199360897 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C2781035248 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C33923547 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C40422974 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C41008148 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C55493867 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C59822182 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C86803240 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C95457728 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C97256817 @default.
• W3122326876 hasConceptScore W3122326876C98184364 @default.
• W3122326876 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3122326876 hasLocation W31223268761 @default.
• W3122326876 hasOpenAccess W3122326876 @default.
• W3122326876 hasPrimaryLocation W31223268761 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W135750979 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W1578590158 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W2016800737 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W2048894530 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W2083569791 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W2096997588 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W2112044607 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W2121691771 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W2127194650 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W2137099293 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W2495690343 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W250991979 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W3122787747 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W3122911285 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W3123435641 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W3123760213 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W3124939966 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W562126715 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W629470040 @default.
• W3122326876 hasRelatedWork W75110680 @default.
• W3122326876 hasVolume "61" @default.
• W3122326876 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3122326876 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3122326876 magId "3122326876" @default.
• W3122326876 workType "article" @default.