Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Identification Technologies in Policing and Proof

  • Gary Edmond
  • Simon A. Cole
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_263



As citizens we are increasingly observed, traced, and documented in our routine and some of our not-so-routine activities. While it is common for citizens and scholarly commentators to question, and frequently criticize, invasive uses of emerging technologies, it is less common to focus attention on actual technical capacities and the use of “traces” as intelligence and evidence in criminal justice practice. This omission is curious, because there are long-standing problems with identification and proof in legal settings. This entry discusses the reliability, and therefore evidentiary (or probative) value, of techniques (and technologies) routinely used for surveillance and proof of criminal activities (including terror offenses). Recent work on surveillance and surveillance technologies has tended to focus on...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Aronson JD (2007) Genetic witness: science, law, and controversy in the making of DNA profiling. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  2. Bijker W, Hughes T, Pinch T (eds) (1987) The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell A (2011) The fingerprint inquiry report. Scotland AG, Edinburgh. The Scottish GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  4. Champod C, Lennard C, Margot P, Stoilovic M (2004) Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole SA (2001) Suspect identities: a history of fingerprinting and criminal identification. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole SA (2007) How much justice can technology afford? The impact of DNA technology on equal criminal justice. Sci Publ Pol 34(2):95–107Google Scholar
  7. Cole S (2011) Splitting hairs? Evaluating ‘split testimony’ as an approach to the problem of forensic expert evidence. Syd Law Rev 33:459–485Google Scholar
  8. Davis J, Valentine T (2008) CCTV on trial: matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Appl Cognitive Psych 23:482–505Google Scholar
  9. Dror I et al (2006) Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int 156:74–78Google Scholar
  10. Edmond G, Roach K (2011) A contextual approach to the admissibility of the state’s forensic science and medical evidence. U Toronto Law J 61:343–409Google Scholar
  11. Edmond G, San Roque M (2012) The cool crucible: forensic science evidence and the frailty of the criminal trial. Curr Issues Crim Justice 24:51–68Google Scholar
  12. Edmond G, Cole SA, Cunliffe E, Roberts A (2013) Admissibility compared. University of Denver Criminal Law Review (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Expert Working Group on Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis (2012) Latent print examination and human factors: improving the practice through a systems approach. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  14. Feigenson N, Spiesel C (2009) Law on display: the digital transformation of legal persuasion and judgment. New York University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrett B (2011) Convicting the innocent: where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Goold B (2004) CCTV and policing. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Groebner V (2007) Who are you? Identification, deception, and surveillance in early modern Europe (trans: Kyburz M, Peck J). Zone, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Haggerty KD, Ericson RV (2000) The surveillant assemblage. Br J Sociol 51(4):605–622Google Scholar
  19. Ho HL (2008) A philosophy of evidence law: justice in the search for truth. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Introna LD, Wood D (2004) Picturing algorithmic surveillance: the politics of facial recognition systems. Surveill Soc 2:177–198Google Scholar
  21. Jasanoff S (1995) Science at the bar. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenkins R, White D, Van Montfort X, Burton AM (2011) Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition 121(3):313–323Google Scholar
  23. Kaye DH (2010) The double helix and the law of evidence. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Krimsky S, Simoncelli T (2011) Genetic justice: DNA data banks, criminal investigations, and civil liberties. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Latour B (1987) Science in action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Lynch M, Cole SA, McNally R, Jordan K (2008) Truth machine: the contentious history of DNA fingerprinting. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyon D (2008) Surveillance studies: an overview. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Marx G (2003) A tack in the shoe: neutralizing and resisting the new surveillance. J Soc Issues 59(2):369–390Google Scholar
  29. Morris E (2011) Believing is seeing: observations on the mysteries of photography. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (2009) Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. The National Academies, Washington, DC, Community CoItNotFSGoogle Scholar
  31. Neumann C, Evett IW, Skerrett J (2012) Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm. J Roy Stat Soc A 175(2):1–26Google Scholar
  32. Risinger M (2000) Navigating expert reliability: are criminal standards of certainty being left on the dock? Albany Law Rev 64:99–152Google Scholar
  33. Saks M, Koehler J (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309:892–895Google Scholar
  34. Scott JC (1985) Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  35. Tangen J, Thompson M, McCarthy D (2011) Identifying Fingerprint Expertise. Psychological Science 22:995–997Google Scholar
  36. Torpey J, Caplan J (eds) (2001) Documenting individual identity: the development of state practices since the French revolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Ulery B, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, Roberts MA (2011) Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(19):7733–7773Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Network for Interdisciplinary Studies of Law (NISL) School of LawThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Criminology, Law & SocietyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA