CLPEX Chat Board

I'm new to this board, and the following might be old hat to you guys, but here goes. What do you think about this analogy?

Would a reaonable person consider the medical field to be a scientific field? I think that most would. Consider the following:

I'm not feeling well. I go to see my doctor. My doctor runs some tests. My doctor reviews the results of the tests in an objective manner. Doc considers all of the test results, and based upon his knowledge, training and experience, reaches a subjective conclusion. Doc then does what doctors commonly do: he gets a consult. The second doctor knows nothing about me or my medical history. She considers the test results in an objective manner. Based on her knowledge, training and experience, that doctor also reaches a subjective conclusion. Both doctors reach the same conclusion, and I accept their results.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I think that any science has to involve human subjectivity. How can it be any other way? Science doesn't invent itself. If we acknowledge this up front, and we don't stumble all over it on the stand, it shouldn't be a threat to us.

This is a simple analogy that even a jury can grasp:

Would a reasonable person consider the medical field to be a scientific field? I think that most would. Consider the following:

I'm not feeling well. I go to see my doctor. My doctor runs some tests. My doctor reviews the results of the tests in an objective manner. Doc considers all of the test results, and based upon his knowledge, training and experience, reaches a subjective conclusion. Doc then does what doctors commonly do: he gets a consult. The second doctor knows nothing about me or my medical history. She considers the test results in an objective manner. Based on her knowledge, training and experience, that doctor also reaches a subjective conclusion. Both doctors reach the same conclusion, and I accept their results.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I think that any science involves human subjectivity. How can it be any other way? Science doesn't invent itself. If we acknowledge this up front, and we don't stumble all over it on the stand, it shouldn't be a threat to us.

I find the issue of subjectivity in fingerprint examination important, if not critical. However, I think that some (not all) of the way it is discussed is not really productive:
1. One can get into endless philosophical questions; such as distinguishing between ontology and epistemology (the 'objectivity' of what really exists and the 'subjectivity' of our knowledge), Kant, Scepticism, and many other issues. However, these are issues in philosophy of science and metaphysics, and interesting as they may be, they have little to no bearing on the very practical issues facing fingerprint examiners/ examination.
2. Yes, 'perception is far from perfection', never is anything totally objective. But this is tautological and unhelpful.
3. Definitions only offer little (if any) help in real and meaningful understanding.
4. The focus of many discussions is what can be said in court, so the judge/jury 'buy' into your position (whether you are a LPE or a defence solicitor); e.g., whether to state that fingerprint analysis is objective, or that it is subjective, but still error free (or at least reliable).
But the discussions miss to a large extent the real and important issues about the possible existence, role, and implication of subjectivity in fingerprint analysis.

I think that there are different kinds and levels of subjectivity. Subjectivity does not come in one shape and size. Subjectivity, in certain forms and levels:
1. Has no detrimental affect on fingerprint analysis (some are even helpful and have a facilitating and contributing role to making good and reliable identifications).
2. Can cause problems.
3. Will cause problems if not dealt with (for example, via correct selection of people to this profession to begin with, training and professional development, procedures, etc).

These issues of subjectivity must be dealt with 'objectively' (if I dare say this word), and based on scientific research. The problems with this are, among others:
1. Very little research on subjectivity in fingerprint analysis has been conducted.
2. Many people involved have vested 'interests' (yes, everyone has an interest… no objectivity…; but there are pure scientific interests --i.e., in finding the truth-- and then there are interests of 'looking good', so called 'loyalty', and an agenda of 'defending' ACE-V and the fingerprint domain -- which in fact hurts the domain in the long run.

I do understand that fingerprint experts depend to a large degree (if not totally) on how the domain is perceived by judges and juries; and thus correctly fear anything that can harm their status (knowing that some unscrupulous solicitor is there willing to do anything to make them look not credible). Nevertheless, I believe, that the focus ought to be on scientifically researching and understanding if & how subjectivity influences fingerprint analysis, and what measures can be taken (if needed) to minimize (eliminate?) such influences (if they exist). This applies not only to subjectivity, but also to a variety of cognitive and psychological influences that may play a role in fingerprint analysis.


Itiel

Last night going over my literature research I came across a group of quotes which are meaningful at this time.
David Grieve
"Some practitioners outside SWGFAST have argued that we do not need to formulate consensus standards and that status quo is just where we ought to be. Their comments have ommitted the fact that status quo is often different from one agency to another, from one region to another and certainly from one country to another. Perhaps, as these people claim, exploration into methods and procedures, let alone identification standards, will prove to be a waste of time and effort. Nevertheless, if we have achieved a positionof nirvana in fingerprints, then a review of what we are doing, how we do it, and more important, why we are doing it, does no harm. On the other hand, if we can improve our understanding of the entire process by conducting such a review, then we will surely gain. Any such review must be extremely thorough and as objective as possible. We must examine not only the validity of our results, but the fundamental bases for how and why we execute each activity involved in analysis. Probably most difficult of all, we must clearly delineate our explanations, reasons and justifications by use of a language that is clear to all, for if we cannot comprehend each other, then we cannot expect anyone outside our area of expertise to do the same."
David Ashbaugh
" While a change in doctrine was in the best interests of the friction ridge identification science, it placed a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of those who practice within the science. For example, the responsibility of ensuring that one has adequate knowledge of friction ridge formation and is aware of how that relates to the premises of friction ridge identification was left to the individual expert. Also left to the individual were developing an understanding of how friction skin leaves latent or visible prints on substrates and the various distortions which may take place during deposition, gaining an awareness of the current philosophy and methodology used to individualise friction ridge prints, and being cognizant of the morals and obligations demanded of those who pursue forensic science as a career."
Kasey Wertheim
"The result will be a more scientific discipline this century that uses terms, methods, processes, and procedures that on average, better conform to practices of good science than the previous century."
Cheers from oz.

Interesting thread, at this point I think I have a lot more questions than answers.

Over-reacting was mentioned a few times….I haven’t seen examiners over-react; I really just think this issue can be confusing and examiners are just trying to be prepared.

I particularly like the idea of Inter-subjective Agreement that Charles mentioned. I’ve never heard of it before but I think it’s exactly what the critics are talking about.

I think the critics know that we are humans and therefore our interpretations are inherently subjective, but I don’t think this answer addresses the real point the critics are trying to make.

I think the issue is that we have no common measures of success for many of our conclusions (not just ID and no ID but others as well). If we don’t have some sort of standard then how do we know when something is valid? We can explain how we arrive at a conclusion but what measure do we use for when we’ve established individualization? If we’re saying that we’ve eliminated everyone else in the world, what was the factor that tipped our conclusion from being highly likely to being conclusive? What makes us be 100% certain? Is the conclusion just our opinion or is it justified by the evidence and by an accepted criteria?

Some people say we do have standards but different tolerance levels. I know there’s a difference but I can’t seem to grasp it right now. Here are some areas where the standard may seem vague to some people:

-What’s the standard for sufficiency? Is sufficiency based on training and experience? If so then a conclusion might not be reproducible. Is reproducibility the standard? I’ve heard of some conclusions that were verified but still found to be inaccurate.
-Is there a standard to determine if something is distortion or a discrepancy?
-Given the same information (latents and knowns), can the same examiner make different conclusions on different days? I think we all know this can happen but I’m wondering is this acceptable in some cases? For example, given the same latents and knowns, the effort you put into may be different depending on the case type (more effort for a homicide than an auto theft). Is knowing the case type biasing information or relevant information? Is there a standard thought on this?
-Is it possible that my conclusion would be different if I had a different amount of sleep the night before or a different amount of work on my desk?
-Do we have standard methods for reducing for bias (limiting information or using blind verification)?
-We have a standard method but do we use it in a standard fashion?
-Is the use of blind verification standard? When should we use it? How often should we use it?
-What about the use of documentation? Is it standard or is it standard that verifiers don’t want to see any documentation because they recognize that it might influence them?
-Is it standard to work for the latent to the known? If we go back and forth, is this circular reasoning?
-Is verification as confirmation standard? Or is verification as trying to falsify the conclusion standard? Is ‘one verifier enough’ the standard?
-Are technical reviews standard?
-Is the use of ‘No minimum number’ standard or do agencies have number standards as a quality assurance measure? Is point counting not standard?
-Is consulting with others a standard? Is it standard to document this? Do people we consult with have to be within our own agency?
-Is documenting disagreement standard?
-Can we use level 1 detail to exclude?
-Is exclusion from the one discrepancy rule standard?
-Is absolute certainty a standard?
-Is the use of creases, scars, and level 3 detail standard?
-Is the use of ‘inconclusive’ standard?
-Is the use of ‘no Identification effected’ standard?
-How about ‘in so far as possible’?
-Is having a degree a standard? Is certification a standard? Is accreditation a standard?
-Are the levels of detail standard? If so, what is an incipient short ridge, level 2 or level 3 detail?
-Do we have standards regarding errors? Is a missed ID important? Is an erroneous exclusion important?
-Are our training programs standardized?

After considering these questions then it’s not so hard to see why the critics are saying that we have no standards and we intuit (I think that’s Simon Cole’s word)….they (the critics and the defense attorney’s) are saying that what we do is subjective when maybe they really mean that we have no ‘Inter-subjective Agreement’? I think many people who’ve been in this profession for a while can easily answer the above questions but maybe the answers aren’t so easy for a newer examiner (or for the critics and the courts) to find. I know it wasn’t easy for me to find the answers too a lot of these questions.

Any thoughts?

The real problem is that there is no practical method of obtaining statistics to support accuracy. Thousands of accurate idents (sorry, individualizations) are made every day, yet there is no record of the successes, only major headlines a couple of times a year when an individualization is found to be something other than accurately individualized. How many slip through the cracks resulting in inaccurate reports? Not many, but conceivably a few that are never challenged or caught, and a few that are. The critics would inflate the number. But how do we know for sure? We cannot submit every comparison (individualization, non-individualization and insufficient) to industry review for a vote.

Lawyers live in a world of lies -- from their clients, from opposing counsel, from witnesses, from jury decisions and even judges. LPEs are not exempt from such consideration. We can do little to belay that suspicion other than eliminate errors and let the record speak for itself as it has done for a century.

We can posture all we want, add independent verification on each and every comparison (not just individualizations), write volumes of elaborate documentation in support of our ACE and put lots of icing on the cake. Most of this simply creates speed bumps that increase backlogs and create redundant busy-work forcing us to seek time-cutting work-arounds to reduce caseload. Some of it, regretably, is required for ASCLD accreditation in the form of P&P designed to close the door before the horse had fled the barn, but which in effect is largely ineffective and grossly time-consuming.

What I hope we rely on is the realization that every individualization and indeed comparison is a personal guarantee upon which each of us places our reputation and employment with each and every call. There is an enormous risk in a single bad individualization reaching the courtroom. Consequently, most of us will pull back from the edge of the envelope and play it safe. The few that do not are eventually caught and removed. Indeed, each LPE should produce work such that V is not needed, not to say that it should be eliminated. This is not realized or admitted by the critics who themselves are not subject to such rigid and exacting personal standards.

WOW, gone for a few days and there is a lot to read and consider. Then there is Michele’s post and I was reminded by Roy Schneider in “Jaws” when he sees the shark for the first time as he backs up he states “We are going to need a bigger boat”. Michele, Kasey we are going to need a bigger thread.

First with the OP I think everyone is practically on the same page. Some state that the process is a mixture and some state it is subjective. BUT everyone agreed that the conclusion was subjective. That was the reason for my original posting. I had stated that I thought the process was subjective but after reading Strict, and M. Davis posts I have to agree that when you have a print that is one of those clear and concise 40+ RC that has a Target Rich Environment and that anyone can see the agreement-----that is objective. I may not use that argument but I can certainly say I cannot argue against it.

The differences in the posts are minor in regards to the OP.

JOHN: You always make pretty good sense. I like your use of scientific judgment and that “science is not perfect or infallible”. I agree that science is a process of understanding. By the way what is the source of your definitions? I have not seen them written that way before.

OVERREACTION: On the topic of overreaction I think it does exists with some LPE but as Michele said it is not that common. Like Pat I have had on some occasions LPE who get tested in court by the Defense and want to change this and that. When quizzed most have brought it on themselves by the responses they give. Improvement of ones knowledge and the articulation of that knowledge is the advice I would give.

LEVELS OF SUBJECTIVITY: I liked Dr. Drior’s presentation of subjectivity levels. I got to incorporate that one.

THE DEFENDERS CURSE: In any discipline you have those on the inside and those on the outside. As John said Science is not perfect and neither is any discipline. There is always room for improvement. But those concepts that are seen wrong by an outside body may not be factual or real to the extent that they are stated (eye of the beholder). If those on the inside defend their position they are sometimes seen by the outside to be “closing ranks”, or they have “special interests” when from my POV they are presenting the best course of action. I also admit that when there is any human endeavor you will have some people with a “vested interest”. But that works both ways not only from the inside but from the outside as well. Both the inside and outside sometimes use an “Ad Hominem Argument” which is attacking the opponent rather than the opponent’s evidence and arguments.

SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS: I have no problem with any scientific experiments that are aimed at expanding the body of knowledge. I only ask that it be relevant and developed with solid reasoning. As with any human endeavor you can have scientific experiments that are good and some that are bad. The problem is you cannot usually tell until it is finished.

PHILOSOPHY: From my POV I like philosophy. I am not into political philosophy or religious philosophy but I try to concentrate on scientific philosophy. One of the main components of philosophy is logic and from that springs reasoning. Now there are some philosophical concepts that have no bearing on this discipline but I think some parts should just as some parts of Biology and Chemistry are incorporated.

STANDARDS: Man I am not even going to try this one. It is removed from the OP so maybe I need to create another OP just on standards.

As I stated earlier I think the differences as expressed here are just a minor blimp in the beliefs of most practicing LPE. I really appreciate that everyone read each others post and respected each others beliefs while maybe not going along with those beliefs. It is nice to see some different reflections of ideas, concepts and beliefs.

Time for bed.

Dennis--don't quit your day job.

Dennis,

Put those to music and sing them for us. Maybe Kasey can post them as MP3 files.

Ummmm . . . . . on second thought, maybe not.