LAW AND FINGER-PRINTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14853, 2 December 1911, Page 1 (Supplement)

LAW AND FINGER-PRINTS.

JIT TOnTWOA.

'I'hkrb is. nothing which the -average mat) is so satisfied should be avoided as the law—with a little " 1"- -being quite convinced that the man who gets into the dutches of lawyers will be lucky if .he escapes in his socks. The Lawwith a capital " L"—we generally hold in respectful affection, being as emphatically convinced that without it we should; be heathen rowdies, living by robbing one another and finding diversion in cutting one another's throat.*. This apparent inconsistency isn't really inconsistent -for what we conceive of as " Law" is the triumph of common-sense, while what we think of as " law" is the defeat of common-sense by the influence of men trained to treat words as though words were mathematical symbols. And words aren't! Nor are ideas'. Nor is any form of human thought. We have still to rough-hew our way if we would have reasonably sound thinking, and we must always distrust lawyer-talk if we would have sound law. The finger-print business, for example, is not the simple and infallible process which "experts" and special pleaders would have us believe. If any logician*' woro asked what- were the "chances" of two individuals being so nearly alike* in colour, height, hair, eyes. ears. nose, mouth, chin, limbs, hands, feet, body, and even in scars, that ordinary intelligent witnesses would be unable to distinguish ©no from the ether, that wives would dispute, over them and police confuse an innocent man they had never seen with his guilty double, whom they knew well —what would the " logician'* say? Undoubtedly ho would say that. "the chances" were equal to only one in ever so many millions of millions of millions of millions. As undoubtedly he would say that " the chances'* were so remote as to be practically negligable. and that the question of " doubles" was outside reasonable considerations. Yet everybody knows that " doubles" are sufficiently common to be constantly in evidence, and that the very things which seem impossible do actually and not. infrequently occur. What becomes of "the chances"* in .face of this visible? and admitted conflict being " fact" and " theory." As a matter of fact, the man who talks of " chances" .in such a manner as to imply that they have a definite place in calculating the prospect of a "double" introduces the element of word-twisting, which is peculiar to "law" as distinct from " Law." The " Law," the great Law of sharp sword and the long arm. would sweep aside every theoretic argumerit. as to the "double" being " practically impossible'* when confronted by the fact that "doubles" are known: but the " law*' would still be confused by the high sounding argument, and jurymen woulcl still be .treated to variations of "the chances " being one in so many millions ot trillions of cases. Of "finger-printing"— which is in its infancy, and. consequently, is spoken of by " experts" with an air oi supreme confidence and of pitying contempt for those who doubt it* infallibilitywe have the same claims. It was stated in - Court--:the' other day that' the *■' chalice" of two finger-prints being identical was one in countless millions—and this is the sort of thing which poor humanity has te deal with in its effort to make " law" into true and authoritative " Law." None should imagine that there is nothing in. finger-printing, because it is not infallible and cannot be infallible. " Finger-printing" is neither more nor lest than an additional means of identiticatior which may fairly and advantageously be vised in conjunction with other evidence What is absurd and preposterous is the assumption that a given finger-print is necessarily and invariably made by one person, and that one person only. This is so clearly untenable that every mar who seeks the triumph of " Law" should refuse- to admit it. and should questior the common-sense of the " expert'' making the assumption, or of the special pleadei repeating it. For it opens up not only the mysterious subject of "doubles' but ' the far less mysterious- anc fairly understood philosophy of chance. ' .Wo cannot possibly doubt that "doubles exist, and the probability is that they exis in very considerable numbers. To fitigges that every .difference between individual ■is to bo found in the finger-print" is ten silly altogether. It is the usual cocksured nes's of enthusiasts upon subjects whicl have not been fully investigated, and o which tho elemental conditions are no understood. As "doubles" undoubtedly d' exist, and am "doubles" in tinger-printinj are in all human probability much mor frequent than physically similar " doubles/ wo must examine the meaning o "chances'* to see how this affects the prob Icm. Look at "chances!" One of the best known of Auckknders gives an instance o '' coincidence." He had a bosom friend ii a distant part of the world. Many year afterwards his son, in a totally dift'eren part of the world, was introduced to a tota stranger, who casually inquired if he hat ever met a man of the name of his father* friend. The inquirer was a brother. Now hero we have among all the counties chances of men never meeting these friend drifting apart and being thus brought agaii into touch with one another. The chuice would be one in innumerable millions. Ye it ; happens. Kverv man's life is full of what, we ten " coincidence." which is really the happen ing of the thing which " chance" i against. A' woman loses a rip while bathing, and. finds it, a year latei offered for tale in a foreign trinket-shop - or a ring exactly similar. Two men mee in an English railway carriage; they mee again in "an Auckland street; they com face to face in a. New Orleans hotel—am every meeting is brought about by appai ciitlv- unconnected circumstances. "Glances "ignored by "coincidences," as we ai know. Now, what happens? If you shuffle pack of cards and cut the ten of spade what are the "chances" that the. next cu will also be a ten of, spades? Nominal!} one in 52. But you may again cut th j ten of spades immediately, and may kee lon cutting it over and .over again. Thi j seems to defy the law of chance, but doe not, for the* fact is that the "one : in-52 I charge is renewed at. every cut. You d '< not put the ten of spades out of court b ! cutting it twice, ten times, or a hundre I times. Onlv those who think you do ar j astonished at the frequent cutting of i particular card time, after time. I Tho .so-called " law of chance". is shee bunkum as far as its application to an; ! individual cases go. At the great garni: i lin" resorts the " tables" do not win in th I end simply because, the odd -" chance" i ' always in their favour: their security is i ! the •'limit." which by perpetually restart ing the game prevents " a run of luck ! from being disastrous to them, and give I the odd chance • opportunity to work The "law of chance" will prevent nobod who has a finger-printing "double" iron not crossing .the path of that double unti '. a certain lapse of time. Tho twaii ' t might not meet until the sun grows cold and they might meet in a minute, a day j a year—any time. it is pitiable to see the growth of am I delusion. It is amazing to see, in tlii i Twentieth Century, the growth of a de fusion which, if given the rope, may en danger, the lives and the liberties of in nocent men. We ought not to wait unti an innocent,man is hanged before realis ing that while finger-printing, like hand r writing, is good in 'its place, it is no mon infallible than hand-writing—probably no as much.