Fingerprints and DNA as Evidence

The Secret History of the Future podcast takes topics that feel like state-of-the-art today, and then shows you the parallels to anything from the distant past. The examples are usually unintuitive: who’d imagine driverless cars of today and the start of the automobile era a century ago bring up similar questions!

 

This blog is about an episode on the similarity between fingerprinting (been there for centuries) and DNA (far more recent) in the use of crime solving. Both are considered unique to an individual, and the judicial system treated both as clinching evidence in their heyday (Ok, DNA is still in its heyday).

 

That’s the problem, says the podcast. TV shows and movies have reinforced the belief that they are clinching evidence. But there were errors in matching fingerprint: 1 in 1,000 positive errors (called a match when it wasn’t really a match), and 1 in 20 negative errors (not called a match when it was really a match). Think about how many wrong convictions (or “not guilt” verdicts) such errors would have resulted in…

 

Errors is the common risk between fingerprints and DNA, says the podcast. Many of us don’t realize that DNA can be transferred quite easily. Therefore, finding DNA on something is not cast iron evidence that the person was even there! Then there’s the point that technology today is so advanced that even trace DNA amounts can be picked out and identified. But if DNA can be transferred easily, then a trace finding shouldn’t carry much weightage whereas a significant quantity couldn’t land up by just happenstance. The judicial system, however, doesn’t factor in for this difference between trace v/s significant amounts of DNA. And that would be leading to errors in verdicts. Worse, factoring in for this difference requires people with maths-y/statistical mindsets, and it’s hard to see how judges, let alone juries, can be trained to think in those terms.

 

Further, in case of both fingerprints and DNA, you don’t know when the sample was left. Before the crime? During the crime? Or after the crime? How many judges/juries really understand that point and calibrate for it?

 

Which is why the podcast says that just as fingerprints stop being considered sufficient evidence and had to be supplemented with other evidence, the judicial system needs to stop treating DNA as cast-iron evidence, as “infallible evidence” of guilt that is sufficient by itself.

 

I guess this is the kind of thing that Mark Twain had in mind when he said history doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure rhymes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Image
As a toddler, my daughter loved Alia Bhatt’s songs, esp. the ones from Student of the Year . (That movie did have many good songs and well-choreographed dances). Fast forward to present day, when she is 12 yo. She rarely watches Hindi movies now, but one of the few ones she likes of late, Raja aur Rani ki Prem Kahani has, yes, Alia Bhatt.   If I had any hopes that there was anything to be read in the name of her toddler-time favorite ( Student of the Year ), they have been dashed. Our conversations come exam time are perfectly captured by this photo and its caption: In fact, the pic below captures how she and I look at her answer sheets – me intently, she with an expression of “It’s over, so why are you even looking at it?”   Of late, we pull her leg and tell her that she isn’t showing any signs of academic prowess, she’d better find a rich guy to marry. Some time later, she showed us this meme on the Internet: “Me No Study, Me No Care Me Go Marry Millionaire If He Die
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn
Read more

Handling of the Satyam Scam

The Satyam scam. How does that fit into Montek Singh Ahluwalia’s book on reforms in India, Backstage ? The reason is that, as both NASSCOM and the government of India felt: “(Satyam’s) collapse would create a great deal of disruption for clients worldwide and seriously damage India’s reputation as a reliable source of software services.”   Therefore, the government decided to work with the private sector to “organize a quick takeover by a reputable new buyer, who would quickly restart the company”. But that could not be done overnight. In the meantime, the new board would have to reach out to Satyam’s clients and “reassure them that the company would survive”.   For the new board to have credibility when it made that statement, it had to be staffed with people who understood the private sector, the IT sector in particular, and commanded respect and trust. Deepak Parikh from HDFC was made chairman, and other members of the board included a former NASSCOM chairman, CII member,
Read more