Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions
Global escalation of crime has necessitated the use of digital imagery to aid the identification of perpetrators. Forensic facial comparison (FFC) is increasingly employed, often relying on poor-quality images. In the absence of standardized criteria, especially in terms of video recordings, verific...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Biology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/10/12/1269 |
| _version_ | 1797506555242872832 |
|---|---|
| author | Nicholas Bacci Joshua G. Davimes Maryna Steyn Nanette Briers |
| author_facet | Nicholas Bacci Joshua G. Davimes Maryna Steyn Nanette Briers |
| author_sort | Nicholas Bacci |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Global escalation of crime has necessitated the use of digital imagery to aid the identification of perpetrators. Forensic facial comparison (FFC) is increasingly employed, often relying on poor-quality images. In the absence of standardized criteria, especially in terms of video recordings, verification of the methodology is needed. This paper addresses aspects of FFC, discussing relevant terminology, investigating the validity and reliability of the FISWG morphological feature list using a new South African database, and advising on standards for CCTV equipment. Suboptimal conditions, including poor resolution, unfavorable angle of incidence, color, and lighting, affected the accuracy of FFC. Morphological analysis of photographs, standard CCTV, and eye-level CCTV showed improved performance in a strict iteration analysis, but not when using analogue CCTV images. Therefore, both strict and lenient iterations should be conducted, but FFC must be abandoned when a strict iteration performs worse than a lenient one. This threshold ought to be applied to the specific CCTV equipment to determine its utility. Chance-corrected accuracy was the most representative measure of accuracy, as opposed to the commonly used hit rate. While the use of automated systems is increasing, trained human observer-based morphological analysis, using the FISWG feature list and an Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) approach, should be the primary method of facial comparison. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T04:35:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e675339ee2ff4c508b13dfbdbc195659 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2079-7737 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T04:35:12Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Biology |
| spelling | doaj.art-e675339ee2ff4c508b13dfbdbc1956592023-11-23T03:53:27ZengMDPI AGBiology2079-77372021-12-011012126910.3390/biology10121269Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future DirectionsNicholas Bacci0Joshua G. Davimes1Maryna Steyn2Nanette Briers3Human Variation and Identification Research Unit, School of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2193, South AfricaHuman Variation and Identification Research Unit, School of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2193, South AfricaHuman Variation and Identification Research Unit, School of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2193, South AfricaHuman Variation and Identification Research Unit, School of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2193, South AfricaGlobal escalation of crime has necessitated the use of digital imagery to aid the identification of perpetrators. Forensic facial comparison (FFC) is increasingly employed, often relying on poor-quality images. In the absence of standardized criteria, especially in terms of video recordings, verification of the methodology is needed. This paper addresses aspects of FFC, discussing relevant terminology, investigating the validity and reliability of the FISWG morphological feature list using a new South African database, and advising on standards for CCTV equipment. Suboptimal conditions, including poor resolution, unfavorable angle of incidence, color, and lighting, affected the accuracy of FFC. Morphological analysis of photographs, standard CCTV, and eye-level CCTV showed improved performance in a strict iteration analysis, but not when using analogue CCTV images. Therefore, both strict and lenient iterations should be conducted, but FFC must be abandoned when a strict iteration performs worse than a lenient one. This threshold ought to be applied to the specific CCTV equipment to determine its utility. Chance-corrected accuracy was the most representative measure of accuracy, as opposed to the commonly used hit rate. While the use of automated systems is increasing, trained human observer-based morphological analysis, using the FISWG feature list and an Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) approach, should be the primary method of facial comparison.https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/10/12/1269human identificationfacial identificationCCTVphotographyforensic facial comparisonmorphological analysis |
| spellingShingle | Nicholas Bacci Joshua G. Davimes Maryna Steyn Nanette Briers Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions Biology human identification facial identification CCTV photography forensic facial comparison morphological analysis |
| title | Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions |
| title_full | Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions |
| title_fullStr | Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions |
| title_full_unstemmed | Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions |
| title_short | Forensic Facial Comparison: Current Status, Limitations, and Future Directions |
| title_sort | forensic facial comparison current status limitations and future directions |
| topic | human identification facial identification CCTV photography forensic facial comparison morphological analysis |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/10/12/1269 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nicholasbacci forensicfacialcomparisoncurrentstatuslimitationsandfuturedirections AT joshuagdavimes forensicfacialcomparisoncurrentstatuslimitationsandfuturedirections AT marynasteyn forensicfacialcomparisoncurrentstatuslimitationsandfuturedirections AT nanettebriers forensicfacialcomparisoncurrentstatuslimitationsandfuturedirections |