Standards to avoid bias in fingerprint examination? Are such standards doomed to be based on fiscal expediency?

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 71-72

  Charlton, Dave ^a  

^a not available   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Cognition; Fingerprints; Forensics; Police; Standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875306700     PISSN: 22113681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.009     Document Type: Note

References (21)

1. Ashbaugh D. The key to fingerprint identification. Fingerprint Whorld 1985, 10(40):94-96.
2. Ashbaugh D.R. Ridgeology. Journal of Forensic Identification 1991, 41(1). ISSN: 0895-l 73X.
3. Ashbaugh D. Ridgeology. Fingerprint Whorld 1991, 17(66).
4. Ashbaugh D. Ridgeology. Pt 2. Fingerprint Whorld 1992, 18(68):45-55.
5. Ashbaugh D. Ridgeology. Pt 3. Fingerprint Whorld 1992, 18(67):5-12.
6. Ashbaugh D. Quantitative-qualitative friction ridge analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced ridgeology 1999, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
7. Charlton D., Fraser-Mackenzie P., Dror I.E. Emotional experiences and motivating factors associated with fingerprint analysis. Journal of Forensics Sciences 2010, 55(3).
8. Charlton D. Forensic expertise and self trust, forensic update (division of forensic psychology) 2006, The British Psychological Society, Number 87 P14-19.
9. Cummins H., Kennedy R. Purkinjes' observations (1823) on fingeprints and other skin features. American Journal of Police Science 1940, 31(3).
10. Dror I.E., Peron A., Hind S., Charlton D. When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2005, 19(6):799-809.
11. Dror I.E., Kosslyn S.M., Waag W. Visual-spatial abilities of pilots. Journal of Applied Psychology 1993, 78(5):763-773.
12. Dror I.E., Charlton D., Peron A. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International 2006, 156(1):74-78.
13. Dror I.E., Mnookin J.L. The use of technology in human expert domains: challenges and risks arising from the use of automated fingerprint identification systems in forensics. Law, Probability and Risk 2010, 9(1):47-67.
14. Dror I.E. Perceptual, cognitive and psychological elements involved in expert identification. Friction Ridge Sourcebook 2010.
15. Dror I.E., Wertheim K., Fraser-Mackenzie P., Walajtys J. The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: Biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2012.
16. Dror I.E., Champod C., Langenburg G., Charlton D., Hunt H., Rosenthal R. Cognitive issues in fingerprint analysis: Inter- and intra-expert consistency and the effect of a 'target' comparison. Forensic Science International 2011, 208:10-17.
17. Hall L.J., Player E. Will the introduction of an emotional context affect fingerprint analysis and decision-making?. Forensic Science International 2008, 181:36-39.
18. Kassin S.M., Dror I., Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2013.
19. Langenburg G. A method performance pilot study: Testing the accuracy, precision, repeatability, reproducibility, and biasability of the ACE-V process. Journal of Forensic Identification 2009, 59(2):219-257.
20. Leadbetter M. Letter to editor. Fingerprint Whorld 2007, 33(129):231.
21. Maceo A.V. The basis for the uniqueness and persistence of scars in the friction ridge skin. Fingerprint Whorld 2005.