This research paper traces the history of fingerprint identification from ancient Babylon and China through the pioneering work of Faulds, Herschel, Galton, and Henry, culminating in its global adoption as the primary forensic identification tool. The paper explains the two fundamental properties of fingerprints — individuality and permanence — that make them superior to earlier methods such as anthropometry and competitive with modern DNA testing. It also describes the basic pattern types (arch, whorl, loop, and composite) and the techniques used to recover latent prints. Finally, the paper examines notable cases of erroneous fingerprint identification, including the FBI's misidentification of Brandon Mayfield, and assesses what these errors reveal about the method's limitations.
The paper effectively uses a compare-and-contrast framework when evaluating fingerprinting against earlier identification methods (branding, photography, the Bertillon System) and against DNA testing. Rather than simply describing fingerprinting in isolation, the author situates it within the broader evolution of forensic identification, which strengthens the argument for its continued primacy.
The paper opens with a brief thesis-style introduction, then proceeds through four substantive sections: a historical narrative, a scientific explanation of why fingerprints are reliable, a technical description of pattern types and recovery methods, and a critical review of misidentification cases. A short conclusion synthesizes the main points. This five-part structure is well-suited to a research paper that must cover both historical context and applied science.
Fingerprints are the impressions of the minute ridge patterns found on the fingertips of all individuals. The two basic characteristics of fingerprints are that no two persons have exactly the same arrangement of ridge patterns and that those patterns remain unchanged throughout a person's life. Because of these unique characteristics, fingerprints offer an infallible means of personal identification, and fingerprint identification has become one of the most useful tools of forensic science over the last century and more.
This paper traces the history of fingerprint identification, discusses why fingerprinting has become the number-one identification tool in forensic science, and describes the basic patterns of fingerprints. In addition, it examines certain cases of incorrect fingerprint identification that have thrown doubt on the long-recognized infallibility of fingerprints as an identification tool in criminology.
Evidence exists that fingerprints were used on clay tablets in business transactions in Ancient Babylon as long as 3,000 years ago, and thumbprints were used on clay seals to "sign" documents in China in the 3rd century B.C. This indicates that human beings recognized the significance of such patterns — perhaps without fully understanding them — thousands of years before their forensic potential was realized (Meaney, 2006). Wall etchings found in Nova Scotia, Canada, also show a hand with ridge patterns dating from the first century A.D., and official government documents preserved from the Tang Dynasty in China (610–907 A.D.) and from Persia (14th century A.D.) bear fingerprint impressions. In the Persian documents from the same period, one government physician noted that no two fingerprints were an exact match (Ibid.).
The earliest recorded use of a palm print in crime solving occurred during a murder trial in the Roman Empire. A Roman advocate (circa 35 A.D.) successfully defended a blind boy accused by his stepmother of murdering his own father by demonstrating that a set of bloody handprints on a wall belonged to the stepmother rather than the boy (Clegg, 2004, p. 172).
A number of people contributed to the development of fingerprinting techniques for identification, but it took a long time for fingerprinting to replace the existing method of anthropometry — identification by body measurement — in police work.
In 1684, the Dutch botanist Dr. Nehemia Grew wrote a paper on his observations of patterns on the fingers and palms and the arrangements of sweat pores and epidermal ridges, without elaborating on their practical use ("Every Contact Leaves a Trace…" 2006). In 1686, Marcello Malpighi, an Italian professor of anatomy, carried out important research on fingerprints, though he did not suggest a link between fingerprints and personal identification. A layer of human skin — the "Malpighi layer" — was later named in recognition of his work. Similarly, in 1823, Johannes E. Purkinje, a German professor of anatomy, presented a thesis describing nine types of finger patterns but likewise did not propose any use of fingerprints for identification purposes (Ibid.).
Perhaps the first person to suggest the use of fingerprints as forensic evidence — yet one who never received the recognition he deserved during his lifetime — was Henry Faulds, a British surgeon who went to Japan as a missionary and carried out considerable medical research in the 19th century. Faulds suspected that no two fingerprints were the same and conducted his own research with the help of his Japanese students, taking the fingerprints of as many Japanese and expatriate Europeans as possible and comparing the patterns of whorls, loops, and junctions. He concluded that fingerprints could prove useful in criminal investigations and even carried out his own amateur detective work to catch petty thieves who had left fingerprints on bottles and on a wall (Champkin, 2004).
He wrote a letter to the scientific journal Nature, published on October 28, 1880, categorically stating: "When bloody finger marks or impressions on clay, glass, etc., exist, they may lead to the scientific identification of criminals" (Zonderman, 1999, p. 78). He also attempted to convince police chiefs around the world to use fingerprinting for investigative work and forwarded his findings to Charles Darwin, but was summarily ignored.
Others who were wealthier and better connected than Faulds received greater credit for their work on fingerprints. Sir William Herschel, a British civil servant in colonial India during the mid-nineteenth century and the grandson of the astronomer who discovered the planet Uranus, was recognized for having pioneered the use of fingerprints as an identification tool (Champkin, 2004). Initially, he used palm ink-impressions of native Indians as their "signatures" on contracts without fully grasping their significance. Over time he noticed that no two marks looked alike and that the ridge patterns on the fingertips never changed — persons who signed contracts after gaps of several years displayed exactly the same patterns (Zonderman, 1999, p. 78).
Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, picked up Faulds's idea of identification through fingerprints in the 1880s, studied the existing research, and developed it further. He collaborated with Herschel and provided scientific evidence that no two fingerprints are exactly the same and that prints remain unchanged throughout a person's lifetime. He calculated the odds of finding two identical fingerprints as 1 in 64 billion (Meaney, 2006). Galton published his book Fingerprints in 1892, in which he detailed the first classification system for fingerprints and identified three types of characteristics — loop, whorl, and arch — that are still referred to as Galton's Details today (Ibid.).
Around the same time, the first practical application of fingerprint identification through comparison techniques occurred in another part of the world. The important feat was performed by Juan Vucetich during a murder trial in Argentina in 1892, when he identified that the bloody fingerprints found on a door handle belonged to a woman who had murdered her own children rather than a neighbor who had been falsely accused of the crime (Clegg, 2004, pp. 162–163). This landmark case resulted in Argentina becoming the first country to replace anthropometry with fingerprinting as the primary means of identification, and Vucetich established the world's first Fingerprint Classification Bureau in Buenos Aires.
Sir Edward Henry, like Sir William Herschel, was a member of the Indian Civil Service and was posted in the Indian province of Bengal during the colonial era. After visiting Sir Francis Galton in England, Henry returned to Bengal and instituted a fingerprinting program for all prisoners under his jurisdiction. He eventually developed a classification system that included 1,024 primary classifications, which became known as the "Henry Fingerprint Classification System." He then persuaded the Governor General of India to adopt fingerprinting as the official method of identifying criminals in British India, which was implemented in 1897.
Taking the cue from the Indian administration and impressed by the success of the Henry system, a committee was formed in Britain to evaluate the relative merits of the existing anthropometric system and the new fingerprint system devised by Henry. The committee strongly recommended the adoption of fingerprinting at Scotland Yard, which occurred in July 1901. Henry was transferred to England, where he trained investigators in the Henry Classification System. Within a few years, the system was established as the uniform method of identification around the world. The Henry Classification System remains in use today in most English-speaking countries ("Every Contact Leaves a Trace…" 2006).
Fingerprinting technology was adopted by law enforcement agencies in the United States in 1903, and by 1908 it had also been adopted by the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. Large databases of fingerprints — such as the one maintained by the FBI — are now standard procedure for identifying criminals in most countries. With the development of computer technology, Automatic Fingerprint Recognition (AFR) systems capable of automatically scanning fingerprints and recognizing the peculiarities of individual characteristics have been established. Such computerized systems can search millions of fingerprint files in minutes and have revolutionized law enforcement efforts. Further advances, such as the development of latent fingerprint recovery through "superglue" fuming, have enabled more efficient retrieval of fingerprints from crime scenes and made fingerprinting a vital tool in criminal investigation ("Every Contact…" 2006).
The two fundamental characteristics of fingerprints — individuality and permanence — are the primary reasons they have supplanted earlier methods of personal identification and explain why fingerprints continue to hold their own against more modern methods such as DNA testing.
In more than 100 years since fingerprint records began to be collected and compared, no two fingerprints of two different persons — including those of identical twins — have ever been found to be exactly the same. This is true not only for ridge patterns on the fingertips but also for the patterns on the palms and the soles of the feet ("The History of…" 2006). Recent studies comparing the fingerprints of cloned monkeys showed that even they have completely different fingerprints. Since the introduction of AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems), it has become possible to compare the millions of fingerprint records held by agencies such as the FBI, and not a single case of a perfect match between two fingerprints of two different individuals has been found. This further validates the individuality of fingerprints as a scientific fact.
Permanence is one of the key features of fingerprints, based on the "Principle of Persistency": fingerprints are formed during early fetal life, remain constant throughout life, and are among the last recognizable features to disappear after death. Ridges begin to form on the human fetus between the third and fifth months of pregnancy, when the fetus is approximately 3–4 inches in length. Once the pattern is formed, it remains unchanged throughout a person's life. Growth of the fingertips merely expands the pattern uniformly in all directions. Only deep cuts and injuries penetrating all layers of the epidermis can alter the ridge pattern; superficial removal of a fingerprint is not permanent, as the original pattern reappears over time.
In ancient times, cruel methods such as branding and maiming were used to mark criminals for identification. The Romans introduced tattooing of mercenary soldiers for identification purposes and to prevent desertion ("The History of…" 2006). For a long period until the mid-nineteenth century, law enforcement officers identified criminals through visual memory and eyewitness accounts. Police officers were believed to possess extraordinary "camera eyes" with which they could identify previously arrested offenders, but the system had obvious drawbacks. With the advent of photography, the method of identification improved, but it remained highly unsatisfactory since the appearances of individuals can change drastically over time.
In the 1870s, Alphonse Bertillon, a French law enforcement officer, created anthropometry — a system of identification based on physical measurements and the recorded dimensions of certain bony parts of the body. The method, which became known as the Bertillon System, was the first scientific system police used to identify criminals, but it had a major flaw: appearances and physical sizes can resemble one another and can never be absolutely permanent (Ibid.).
Genetic or DNA fingerprinting, discovered in the 1980s, is the latest development in forensic science that can, like conventional fingerprinting, accurately distinguish one human being from another. This method of identification has a number of advantages over all previous methods including fingerprinting — for example, DNA can be isolated from any part of the body, including skin cells, hair, blood, bloodstains, or semen. Hence, even if a criminal does not leave a fingerprint at the scene of a crime, he or she can be identified if biological material is recovered. A deceased person can also be identified through DNA testing. Like fingerprints, no two persons have the same DNA, with the exception of identical twins.
Nevertheless, fingerprinting still outperforms DNA and all other systems for identifying criminals, solving ten times more unknown-suspect cases than DNA in most jurisdictions around the world ("The History of…" 2006). This is because a massive database of fingerprints is available to law enforcement agencies worldwide and can be cross-referenced with crime scene evidence. DNA testing, by contrast, is still relatively new, requires further standardization and quality control before it can universally challenge fingerprinting as a forensic tool, and only a limited number of reliable laboratories can currently produce accurate DNA results.
The uniqueness and permanence of fingerprints have made them an indispensable identification tool that has been employed in crime fighting by law enforcement agencies for more than 100 years. Fingerprinting is clearly superior to all previous methods of identification, including the Bertillon System based on physical measurements. It even holds its own against more modern methods of identification such as DNA testing, and continues to be the most widely used and trusted method around the world for identifying criminals.
You’re 75% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.