This literature review surveys recent scholarly research on the evolving science of forensic fingerprinting. While fingerprints remain one of the most widely used tools in criminal investigation, the reviewed studies collectively demonstrate that the method is probabilistic rather than infallible. Key findings address statistical limitations in fingerprint matching, the use of "malicious traces" to improve match accuracy, the integration of digital imaging technologies at crime scenes, the potential for remote forensic collaboration, and supplementary biometric strategies such as facial recognition and DNA extraction from fingerprint residue. Together, these works argue for continued research investment to improve the reliability and reach of fingerprint-based evidence.
The paper demonstrates synthesis in literature review writing. Rather than summarizing each source in isolation, the author connects findings across multiple studies to build a cumulative argument: fingerprinting has known limitations, current research is addressing those limitations, and emerging technologies are expanding the field's capabilities. This is the defining skill of an effective literature review.
The paper opens by establishing the importance and ubiquity of fingerprint evidence, then pivots to acknowledging its imperfections (Neumann; Thompson et al.). It next presents solutions — improved trace techniques (Hildebrandt et al.) and digital capture methods (Merkel et al.; Swarminathan et al.) — before broadening the scope to include complementary technologies such as facial recognition (Hess) and DNA extraction from fingerprints (Norlin et al.). A brief conclusion reaffirms the central thesis.
Fingerprints are one of the most commonly employed tools in criminal investigation. This powerful forensic methodology has contributed to the solving of countless criminal cases and has been used as convicting evidence in courts of law. However, as this literature review shows, even the use of fingerprints is in a state of evolution as we gain ever greater and more accurate tools in the struggle to investigate and solve crimes.
At the outset of the discussion, the text by Neumann (2012) helps to dismantle the notion that fingerprints are infallible as a means of establishing identity. According to Neumann's research, fingerprints achieve a certain statistical probability that makes identity matches likely but not certain beyond a doubt. This finding underscores the critical imperative of continuing forensics research, so that we may come into greater proximity of certainty.
The text by Thompson et al. (2013) also reinforces the importance of continuing research on the use of fingerprinting, particularly because it is not a perfect method of detection. According to Thompson et al., the matching of fingerprints with existing records is something of an inexact science. The article finds that "experts showed a conservative response bias, tending to err on the side of caution by making more errors of the sort that could allow a guilty person to escape detection than errors of the sort that could falsely incriminate an innocent person" (p. 1).
In light of such findings, research presented by Hildebrandt et al. (2013) becomes of particular value. According to Hildebrandt et al., the strategy of using "malicious traces" to print varying projections of a single fingerprint can help to substantially improve the statistical probability of achieving a match. According to their research, "the technique of printing fingerprints using artificial sweat allows to create different versions of the same fingerprint, similar to the residue from a finger, which is almost never 100% identical to another latent fingerprint" (p. 1).
This finding helps to justify the ongoing efforts of innovators in the field of forensics to improve matching strategies for fingerprinting.
This and the rest of the literature consulted for this review helps to demonstrate that the field of research on fingerprints remains very much in a state of continuing evolution.
You’re 36% 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.