What does Robert Epstein argue regarding fingerprints?

Robert Epstein argues that fingerprints have not been proven reliable, highlighting concerns about their validity as a form of identification. He emphasizes that while fingerprints have traditionally been viewed as a highly reliable form of forensic evidence, studies have pointed out various issues, such as human error in processing and interpreting fingerprint analysis. This skepticism invites a critical examination of how fingerprints are utilized within the criminal justice system, suggesting that, despite their prevalence, they may not always be as dependable as previously thought.

This perspective encourages a more cautious approach to evaluating fingerprint evidence, recognizing that the methods used to match and assess prints can involve subjective interpretation and potential mistakes. Thus, Epstein's argument reflects a broader dialogue about the standards of reliability and the need for continuous validation of forensic methods.